I’m writing with the hope that you can help me reconcile some issues I’ve had ever since I read St. Louis de Montfort’s True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin. I read and enjoyed your Mary, Mother of the Son trilogy, and while I know you’re very busy I’m hopeful that my concerns are really just silliness, easily resolved by someone with your background.

Short Background: I’m a Catholic convert, who was originally an atheist—one of those really ignorant but angry atheists. I consider myself Catholic before all else, including political party or nationality. I have absolutely no problem with any of the formal Marian dogmas such as the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception. I like to read a lot about my faith, but I’m an electrical engineer, so I do get a little confused when what I read doesn’t have a lot of math in it!

Having said all of that, I felt really uncomfortable by some of the things I read in True Devotion. Here are some examples. In all cases, the emphasis is mine.

1. It was through the Blessed Virgin Mary that Jesus came into the world, and it is also through her that he must reign in the world.

Really? Jesus can’t reign in the world without Mary? He’s God. Can’t He do anything he wills?

Yes. And what he willed was to reign in the world by entering it through the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It’s precisely because God, in his sovereign will, chose to be Son of Mary as well as Son of God that we are saved and that he reigns in the world as the Son of Man.

3. In answer to her prayers to remain hidden, poor and lowly, God was pleased to conceal her from nearly every other human creature in her conception, her birth, her life, her mysteries, her resurrection and assumption. Her own parents did not really know her; and the angels would often ask one another, “Who can she possibly be?”, for God had hidden her from them, or if he did reveal anything to them, it was nothing compared with what he withheld.

There are a lot of cases in this book where it appears to me that St. Louis makes a lot of presumptions. How does he know what the angels would often ask one another? How does he know what God revealed to the angels? How does he know that Mary’s parents didn’t really know her? Is any of this part of capital-T Tradition?

None of this is dogmatic, but it is in accord with the implications of the Tradition. If Jesus was not fully known as the Son of God, if even Mary did not fully grasp the truth about him till the Resurrection and Pentecost, then it rather naturally follows that Mary was also not fully understood by her family and peers. As Peter said, these are “things into which angels long to look” (1 Peter 1:12).

14. With the whole Church I acknowledge that Mary, being a mere creature fashioned by the hands of God is, compared to his infinite majesty, less than an atom, or rather is simply nothing, since he alone can say, “I am he who is”. Consequently, this great Lord, who is ever independent and self-sufficient, never had and does not now have any absolute need of the Blessed Virgin for the accomplishment of his will and the manifestation of his glory. To do all things he has only to will them.

This was very comforting to read, but it’s very short and he continues to say things that just seem kind of weird—heretical sounding to a simple guy like me.

39. Secondly, we must conclude that, being necessary to God by a necessity which is called “hypothetical”, (that is, because God so willed it), the Blessed Virgin is all the more necessary for men to attain their final end. Consequently we must not place devotion to her on the same level as devotion to the other saints as if it were merely something optional.

The key phrase here is “because God so willed it”. Once again, it comes back to the fact of the Incarnation. No Mary, no incarnation. No incarnation, no human nature for the Son to assume. No human nature for the Son, no death on the cross. No death on the cross, no resurrection. No resurrection, no justification. No justification, no salvation. Hence, no Mary, no salvation. So yes, Mary is necessary for us to attain our final end. The Incarnation necessarily means that God the Son has chosen to enter into relationship with us through her.

43. If devotion to the Blessed Virgin is necessary for all men simply to work out their salvation, it is even more necessary for those who are called to a special perfection. I do not believe that anyone can acquire intimate union with our Lord and perfect fidelity to the Holy Spirit without a very close union with the most Blessed Virgin and an absolute dependence on her support.

Because God the Son has chosen to be the Son of Mary, and we are his brothers and sisters, it logically follows that we are, in the words of Mother Teresa, to “Love Jesus as Mary loves Jesus, and love Mary as Jesus loves Mary.” This is why Jesus gives her to us as his last gift before departing this life with the words, “Behold your mother.” Those words are not meant just for John, but for all of us. That’s why John includes them in his gospel. If you have a friend who loves his mother, but you don’t love her, then your friendship is not really complete. When that friend is Jesus, who loves perfectly, and salvation *means* coming to love perfectly as Jesus does, then it logically follows that perfect love for Jesus entails perfect love for his Mother.

86. All this is taken from St. Bernard and St. Bonaventure. According to them, we have three steps to take in order to reach God. The first, nearest to us and most suited to our capacity, is Mary; the second is Jesus Christ; the third is God the Father. To go to Jesus, we should go to Mary, our mediatrix of intercession. To go to God the Father, we must go to Jesus, our Mediator of redemption. This order is perfectly observed in the devotion I shall speak about further on.

The understanding of Mary as Mediatrix is, as is always the case with Mary, really aimed at saying something about Jesus and his Church. For, of course, the whole point of the Incarnation is that God has chosen to reveal himself in a human way and to make us participants in his work. So it isn’t just Mary who is a co-mediator of the grace of God. All of us are. That’s why we are commanded to pray for one another instead of leaving everything in Jesus’ hands. Mary is the archetypal co-Mediator because she is a type of the Church. But her mediation of the grace of God is only the most obvious example of what all Christians do since all of us mediate the grace of God to the world in some way or other. Indeed, Mary can properly be called Mediatrix of all grace for a very simple reason: Jesus *is* all grace and it was through her “yes” and her subsequent pregnancy that he came into the world. Now it is through you and me and our prayers and acts of faith, hope, and love that he is mediated to the people around us. As the old saying goes, “You are the only Jesus some people will ever meet.”

Maybe (okay, definitely) my RCIA class was lacking a little bit, but I was never taught that a devotion to the Blessed Virgin or any saint was necessary for my salvation. Nowhere else in any of my reading have I come across a bold statement like this. I’m having trouble just figuring out how to grow closer to Christ, which was why I read this book. Imagine my surprise to find out that I’m doing it all wrong. I have to go to Mary to get to Jesus. Is this really what is formally taught by the Church? If not, how does it get the seal of approval from the Church?

I wouldn’t quite think of it as “having to go to Mary to get to Jesus” (as though she is a secretary to a busy executive who wants her to screen his calls). Rather, the idea is that Incarnation means that to be a brother or sister of Jesus is necessarily to be a child of Mary as well as a child of God. She is not an obstacle, but a friend and our Mother, rooting for us as the greatest member of the great “cloud of witnesses” Hebrews 12 speaks of.

I don’t mind being obedient to the Church. It makes things easier, really. But I’m having trouble reconciling what I’ve read in this book with all the other things I’ve read. Because of this, a tiny little seed of doubt has been planted and I’d sure appreciate it if you could help me figure out how to spray some Roundup on it.

God is love. In His written word, God manifests himself in any way he chooses. Yes one can go to God directly. I have witnessed miracles from the book, the Secret of the Rosary by St. Louis DeMonfort but also miracles in my own life as a result of reading the book and applying the rosary as a measure of faith. If I asked my sister to pray for me, this would not be unusual to people. I have enough faith to believe that one can pray directly to God and ask Our Blessed Mother as well. One leads to other or vice versa. I was at attending a Nazarene College and writing a paper for college credit and asked to write about another subject that was not about Our Lady. I sighed to Our Blessed mother to help me. I used the Secret of the rosary as a reference by St. Louis Demontfort and beautifully was given not only college credit, and it was given this credit at a Nazarene college.

Posted by rr on Monday, Oct, 21, 2013 6:07 PM (EST):

“So it isn’t just Mary who is a co-mediator of the grace of God. All of us are.”...that’s misleading. Grace DOES NOT go directly from God to us. It goes from God through the hands of Mary, then to the rest of us. We DO NOT have the same role as Mary in distributing grace. People would be better off reading the Fathers and Doctors of the Church to learn about Mary instead of a blogger. Sorry Mark :) The Holy Spirit will teach us the truth about His spouse…and that truth is unshakable.

Posted by rr on Monday, Oct, 21, 2013 5:54 PM (EST):

No grace comes to us that doesn’t pass through the hands of Mary…even non catholics.

Posted by ED on Thursday, Mar, 22, 2012 8:36 PM (EST):

[“I am most interested in further discussion.”]

Yes… I bet you are. LOL

Let’s try this again:

Adios… arrivederci… au revoir!!!

Posted by Terah James on Thursday, Mar, 22, 2012 8:22 PM (EST):

Ed- Your posts give credence to the claim that most Catholics never graduated past the third grade in their faith. It is impossible to have an adult conversation with you about matters of importance.

If anyone else is reading this, and wants to converse about church matters as adult lay people, I am most interested in further discussion.

One would think the web masters of NC Register and columnists would also glean insight into how we lay people think and feel about our Church, and especially at this time where Religious Freedom in the USA is threatened.

Posted by ED on Thursday, Mar, 22, 2012 7:12 PM (EST):

[“No more: bye, bye.”]

Adios… arrivederci… au revoir!!!

Posted by Terah James on Thursday, Mar, 22, 2012 5:31 PM (EST):

Never in any of Pat’s posts did I get the impression that she/he was anti-Catholic. With our government becoming more antagonistic towards all Christians, Catholic, and non-Catholic alike, the time has come for all of us to join hands, & be charitable. “They will know we are Christians, by our love.”

I think it is important for us to question our faith, in order to come to adult conclusions about what we believe. We must be able to ask & answer questions, based on sound information, and not on someone’s opinion or private relevation. The St. Louis de Montfort information sounds like it’s just private revelation, or maybe he ate a pepperoni pizza and had a vivid dream that is still being talked about today.

Here is the rub to that & to advertising the priesthood to men as a “job”:
Bishops do not enjoy the recognition they once had. It is causing all of us (Catholics, non-Catholic Christians alike) to become irrelevant in our government, as irrelevant as Catholics are in Spain, that now has same-sex marriage, & the government has had its share of scandals of all kinds.

I read 98% of Catholics in the pew do not even heed what the Vatican says.
Ed, not everyone is “anti-Catholic”. When we go to Mass this weekend, look around and see the 2% of people that think like you, and wonder what the other 98% are really thinking. It’s time for our pastors to PREACH THE TRUTH, and boldly.

No more: bye, bye. It’s time for us to wake up and smell the coffee: HELLO?

By the way, there is a priest at St. John the Evangelist Parish in St. John, Maryland, a Fr. Sammie Melatta (spelling?) that gave a wonderful homily to his congregation about standing up for Religious Freedom. It should still be on YouTube, and it is magnificent. Well done, to any priest/pastor out there that has courage to lead his flock according to Bible truths that honors God.

Posted by ED on Thursday, Mar, 22, 2012 12:23 AM (EST):

[“Pat?? Help.”]

P-l-e-a-s-e… get serious.

FYI, if you *really* need help… ‘Pope Pat’ can be contacted @ anti-Catholic.com.

But… I’m sure you already know that. LOL

Bye…Bye

Posted by Terah James on Wednesday, Mar, 21, 2012 6:18 PM (EST):

Yet again, on Catholic Radio, I heard something troubling this morning. Pat may appreciate this, as well as others that THINK about their faith, loving God with their minds as well as their hearts:

In Spain, formerly known as a Catholic country, with the unemployment rate over 20%, the Catholic Church there is ADVERTISING for men to enter the priesthood: as a JOB that doesn’t pay much, but that is secure.

Now someone please correct me, if I’m wrong, but I think Spain already approved of same-sex marriage, showing how little the average Spaniard & that government thinks of the Catholic Church in that country.

Perhaps you two should try to peddle your immature thoughts elsewhere?

Hey… just saying.
BYE… BYE.

Posted by Terah James on Tuesday, Mar, 20, 2012 4:30 PM (EST):

I often tune into Catholic radio, and perk up, when I hear the story of the Saint of the Day. Sometimes, those stories are downright funny, like the time when they reported this about a 4th century woman, “Not much is known about her. But, that hasn’t stopped devotion to her!!” Need I say more?

Pat is correct, the TRUTH is in Scripture, the Word of God. Everything else must be tested, proven to be accurate or not, and based on Scripture. Just like what the Bereans did, and the apostles commended them for it.

We’re grown up now. We can all read. We can all THINK. The Holy Spirit, in a Christian that is sealed by Him, helps us discern, and truth is truth, be in the year 33AD or in 2012AD. Truth doesn’t change. Like Jesus the Christ: the same, yesterday, today and forever.

Posted by Pat on Tuesday, Mar, 20, 2012 11:07 AM (EST):

Ed,
The truth is in the Scripture and not in the false teachings of Louis de Montfort.

Posted by ED on Monday, Mar, 19, 2012 9:14 PM (EST):

[“I am no longer a child. The nuns meant well. But I’m no longer in second grade. I grew up.”]

In any case, I/(we) will pray for you to see the Truth. God loves you. Bye…

Posted by Terah James on Monday, Mar, 19, 2012 7:45 PM (EST):

When I was a child, I loved to go to Mother of Perpetual Help devotions, every Tuesday, for years. Now I see the words I was saying, and the problem as I see it is that everyone OTHER than Jesus was being revered. Even Michael the Archangel (not a “saint”) is given more power than Jesus.

With the Mother of Perpetual Help, Jesus is an infant, in her arms. But that is not where Jesus is now, as we point out every time we say the Nicene Creed.

So while I still honor Mary, for her role in God’s plan of salvation, I glorify God and God alone, Jesus and Jesus alone. Thanks be to God, my eyes are open to read the Holy Scriptures, by the power of the Holy Spirit. We serve a Holy Triune Godhead: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
It is not up to mere men (even popes) to add anyone else to the roster.

We have but One Advocate to the Father: the Christ, Jesus. No one is holy, but the Holy Trinity. So the “Holy Father” re: pope, is a misnomer.

We must surrender everything to God, and Him alone. We must consecrate our minds, hearts and souls, to God, and Him alone. I am no longer a child. The nuns meant well. But I’m no longer in second grade. I grew up. Jesus is Sovereign. He is no longer a baby.

The more I see how these (old) devotions came about - like with Pope Leo XIII and St. Louis de Monfort’s personal revelations, the more I see that the Bible is the ONLY true source of the knowledge of God.

Posted by Pat on Monday, Mar, 19, 2012 11:52 AM (EST):

“It was through the Blessed Virgin Mary that Jesus came into the world, and it is also through her that he must reign in the world.” St. Louis de Montfort

“THIRD NOVENA PRAYER TO OUR MOTHER OF PERPETUAL HELP

0 Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.

In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.

But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.——-3 Hail Marys.”

http://www.stalphonsusbalt.org/stamother.htm

Posted by Pat on Monday, Mar, 19, 2012 11:24 AM (EST):

“It was through the Blessed Virgin Mary that Jesus came into the world, and it is also through her that he must reign in the world.” St. Louis de Montfort

“THIRD NOVENA PRAYER TO OUR MOTHER OF PERPETUAL HELP

0 Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.

In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.

But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.——-3 Hail Marys.”

Posted by ED on Sunday, Mar, 18, 2012 11:51 PM (EST):

[Pope Pius XII: “The greatest force behind all his [St. Louis De Montfort’s] apostolic ministry and his great secret for attracting and winning souls for Jesus was his devotion to Mary.” (From Canonization address, July 20, 1947).]—from ‘True Devotion To Mary’, p. v, Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1985.

[Pope Leo XIII granted a plenary indulgence to those who make St. Louis De Montfort’s act of consecration to the Blessed Virgin. On his deathbed he renewed the act himself and invoked the heavenly aid of St. Louis De Montfort, whom he had beatified in 1888.]—from ‘True Devotion To Mary’, p. v, Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1985.

Posted by Pat on Sunday, Mar, 18, 2012 12:18 PM (EST):

Irenaeus,
It does not matter what a person believes if they have the facts. If you don’t have facts to support your belief about Peter then all you have is speculations.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Sunday, Mar, 18, 2012 9:55 AM (EST):

Pat,
Peter, as an apostle was a bishop, just as all apostles were. But you assert he was not a bishop. He spent many years in Rome. But you continue to assert he was not a bishop in Rome, despite several sources. Now to continue, I have shown he was Bishop of Rome, not just in Rome, because other bishops of Rome trace their succession to him as bishop such as clement and anacletus. But you continue to assert he was not. I have showed that he was using authority in Rome from Ignatius and scripture. But you continue to assert he had no authority.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Sunday, Mar, 18, 2012 9:29 AM (EST):

Lector,

You are not a Catholic, so your attempt at using it to give your opinion weight on Catholic history is lost. It is time to be honest with yourself and those around you.

Posted by Lector at Mass on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 11:19 PM (EST):

@Irenaeus, I must agree with Pat that no real evidence shows Peter founded the church at Rome. Mark was essentially “secretary” to Peter and traveled with him during much of his ministry. None of Mark’s writings mention anything concerning Peter being Bishop of Rome nor of his founding any church. One caveat we should consider, however, is another title applied to Pope is, in fact, “Bishop of Rome”—-so it not unusual for average Catholics to draw a conclusion that Peter was Bishop. If fairness, absent of hard evidence, we know some early and later century church writers may have taken speculative liberties intended to connect a pre-determined conclusion. For example, the church says the priesthood is in the tradition of the order of Melchizedek while dismissing the idea the priestly order was founded upon the Levitical Aaronic Priesthood established by the Lord in Exodus to the Hebrews. Many hold Melchizedek was not even even corporeal in origin but Christ Himself. Sometimes passages are extrapolated to fit a desired outcome.

Posted by Pat on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 10:19 PM (EST):

Irenaeus,
There is no historical evidence that Peter founded the church in Rome. Remember, Peter was the apostle to the Jews. His ministry focus was to them and not to the gentiles. But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. Gal 2:7
Read Acts and you will see where he spent the early years of his ministry to the Jews around Jerusalem.
Where in Scripture does it say Peter was to be bishop of the church at Rome? Keep in in mind that when Paul wrote Romans he never refers to Peter. You would think that if Peter was there or had founded the church there he would have said something. The fact that he does not tells that Peter was not a bishop there or had founded it.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 9:31 PM (EST):

Pat,

In case you didnt understand the last post. Anencletus and Clement were bishops of Rome. In the year 110 Ignatius says they are successors of Peter. And apparently he knew this all the way in Antioch. Are you seriously going to continue on saying Peter was not the first bishop of Rome? I already gave you scripture for his authority. I also quoted Ignatius saying he would not issue commandments as Peter does. You need to actually digest what I posted.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 9:03 PM (EST):

Pat,
Denying that the Church of Rome was founded by Peter is like denying the holocaust or denying Jesus ever existed. It’s simply absurd.
“And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? ...as the holy Stephen did to the blessed James, Timothy and Linus to Paul, Anencletus and Clement to Peter?”
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians, 7 (c. A.D. 110).

Posted by Pam on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 8:33 PM (EST):

Although I didn’t think the bloggers sites were moderated, I posted a comment over 24 hours ago that has not been posted. Could you post it please? Thank you

Posted by Pat on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 7:22 PM (EST):

Irenaeus,
If your comment means that you and the Muslims worship the same God then you would also have to say the Mormons worship the same God as you do also.
The Muslims not only have a distorted view of God but it is a false god that does not exist. The god of Islam is a denial of Christ and the Trinity. Agreed?

Posted by Pat on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 7:19 PM (EST):

Irenaeus,
You write -“No, he saw Peter alone. James was in Jerusalem, John was in Ephesus.”
Here what Paul wrote in Galatians 1:19-I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. and 2:9-James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. See also Gal 2:2.
Claiming that “As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome…” is not the same thing as demonstrating that Peter founded the church at Rome or that he was the supreme leader of the church.
To do that, you are going to have to show that Peter was recognized by the apostles and leaders of the churches that Peter was the supreme leader of the church. “References to Peter as “Bishop of Rome,” or to Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:17-19 conferring authority to Peter’s “successors” date from the third century or later. The title of pope (taken from the Greek word for “father”—pappas) had already been used in reference to eastern bishops, and was probably first applied to the Roman bishop in the fourth century.” See Christianity: The First Two Thousand Years, Orbis Books, p.52 and

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 7:08 PM (EST):

Pat,
Muslims worship the God of Abraham, just as Jews do. Abraham is our father in faith. They only see one side of God, and it is horribly distorted at that, but it is the same God of Abraham.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 6:59 PM (EST):

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 6:56 PM (EST):

Pat,
No, he saw Peter alone. James was in Jerusalem, John was in Ephesus.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 6:53 PM (EST):

“As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.”
Clement of Alexandria,(A.D. 190)

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 6:51 PM (EST):

“It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: ‘But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.’”
Gaius, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198).

Posted by Pat on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 5:52 PM (EST):

Rick,
What is the premise of the book?

Posted by Rick on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 5:48 PM (EST):

Try reading She Who Is by Elizabeth Johnson. Best book about Mary you will ever read.

Posted by Pat on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 5:22 PM (EST):

Irenaeus,
It is true that Paul goes to see Peter and become acquainted with him. He also went to see not just Peter but also James and John who along with Peter were reputed to be the pillars.
As for your claim that Peter founded Rome is not supported by any historical facts. There is no first- or second-century evidence supports the view that Peter founded the church in Rome or was its sole bishop.
Your catechism states that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God. How can this be true when Muslims deny the deity of Christ and that He died for sin? If this is not doctrinal error then there is no such thing.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 1:56 PM (EST):

continued
“Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because he called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself.”

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 1:54 PM (EST):

continued
“Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because he called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself.”
-Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen (1895-1979)

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 1:53 PM (EST):

continued.
“If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils.”

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 1:51 PM (EST):

Lets see if I can split up this long quote by Apb. Fulton Sheen
“If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh.”

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 1:48 PM (EST):

“If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because he called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself.”-Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen (1895-1979)

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 1:46 PM (EST):

Pat,
I think you should pray to the Holy Spirit to discern the truth of what I am saying. Christ left us a Church, headed by sinful men who rely on God to stay afloat. The Church is the oldest institution on the planet. It has outlasted every government and dynasty that has tried to destroy Her and the gates of Hell shall never prevail against Her. In other words, she will never teach doctrinal error. She will never lead souls to Hell. This truth is ever evident today where only Church stands against the wisdom of the world, and therefore she is public enemy number one.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 1:17 PM (EST):

Pat,
Also I would mention that in Pauls letter to the Romans 15:20 he says he doesn’t want to build on “another man’s foundation” referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 1:13 PM (EST):

Pat,
Not so with Paul. In Gal. 1:18 Paul spends fifteen days with Peter before beginning his ministry. This was even after Christ’s Revelation to Paul. So even after this event, he goes to the leader of the Church and not on his own.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 1:12 PM (EST):

Pat,
You might need to refresh the webpage. I provided more than how many times he was mentioned. Unfortunately, I could not get it in the same post because of spam filters. We have the writing of other bishops who attest to the succesors of Peter in Rome. St. Ignatius of Antioch writes about it, St. Irenaeus writes about it, St. Clement writes about it, and there are others. These are all before the year 200.

Posted by Pat on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 1:05 PM (EST):

Irenaeus,
Peter was a leader in the NT church but he was not the only one. Paul certainly exercised just as much authority as Peter did. In fact Paul at times instructs all the churches without any deference to Peter. See I Cor 14:34 as an example. We also see Paul giving instructions on the qualifications for church leadership and the structure of the church in I Timothy 3. Peter does not mandate anything to Paul nor does Paul appeal to Peter for his authority.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 1:04 PM (EST):

Lector,
It depended on where you were in the world. The persecutions did not begin everywhere at once. There were geographical areas where it was safe and other where it was not, and many areas which switched from safe to dangerous and back again. For intance, St. John the Evangelist was preaching and celebrating liturgy for quite a number of years in Ephesus before the reign of Domition who exiled him to Patmos. The lack of purposed buildings does not mean irreverent or informal. Polycratus, bishop of Ephesus, successor of St John, tells us that St. John carried on his forehead a plate of gold, as priest of Jesus Christ. This was in immitation of the High Priest of the Jews.

Posted by Pat on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 12:56 PM (EST):

Irenaeus,
How many times someone is mentioned does not make one the supreme leader of the church. Its best to understand that passage in Matt 16 as Peter being given the keys to opening up the kingdom of God to men. We see this fulfilled in Acts 2:14-36 where he preaches the first sermon after Pentecost that brought so many to faith in Christ. Other apostles were also given this authority as we see in the ministry of Paul.
Again, do we see any of the other apostles acknowledging Peter as the supreme head of the church? I know of no passage that comes close to saying this kind of thing.
As for Peter passing on his authority as the supreme leader of the church to someone else, there is no record of that.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 12:47 PM (EST):

Pat,
Acts. 5:1-6 - Peter passes judgment on Ananias and his wife for their incorrect behavior as disciples.
I could go on with many other attributes of the Supreme Pontiff. They are all scriptural as well as in tradition.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 12:45 PM (EST):

Pat,
Acts. 1:20-26 - By word of Peter, a new bishop is chosen by lots under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 12:44 PM (EST):

Pat,
Acts. 1:20-26 – By word of Peter, a new bishop/apostle is chosen by lots under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Acts. 5:1-6 – Peter passes judgment on Ananias and his wife for their incorrect behavior as disciples.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 12:42 PM (EST):

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 12:39 PM (EST):

Pat,
Mt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.
Mt. 16:19 - Only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority and dynastic succession to his authority.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 12:38 PM (EST):

Pat,
The spam filters would not let my longer set of scriptural evidences through.
Mt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and all other apostles combined are 130 times. Peter is always listed first but for two obvious exceptions to the rule (1Cor 3:22; Gal 2:9).

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 12:37 PM (EST):

Pat,
Mt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and all other apostles combined are 130 times. Peter is always listed first but for two obvious exceptions to the rule (1Cor 3:22; Gal 2:9).
Mt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.
Mt. 16:19 - Only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority and dynastic succession to his authority.
Jn. 21:15-17 - Jesus tells Peter to “feed my lambs” “tend my sheep” “feed my sheep”. Peter feeds all, including apostles.
Acts. 1:20-26 – By word of Peter, a new bishop/apostle is chosen by lots under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Acts. 5:1-6 – Peter passes judgment on Ananias and his wife for their incorrect behavior as disciples.
Acts. 15:7-12 – Peter resolves a doctrinal issue. After Peter spoke, all were silent. Paul and Barnabas speak in support.

Posted by Pat on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 11:39 AM (EST):

Irenaeus,
What do you mean that Peter was a pope? Do you mean he was the supreme leader of the entire church while he was alive like the pope is the supreme leader of the RCC? I hope not because the evidence is not there to support such an assertion. The NT does not support this idea. The church of the NT was not structured like the RCC for one and another is that no apostle ever addresses him as the supreme leader nor does Peter present himself as such.

Posted by Lector at Mass on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 1:35 AM (EST):

@ED: What you should be saddened about is your own irrelevance.

Posted by Lector at Mass on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2012 1:32 AM (EST):

@Irenaeus: Yes, there were bishops as outlined in Timothy. No problem. I appreciate the earnest positions and remarks you have been making. Thank you. And I accept Peter as the successor. The clergy, however, was practiced as quite informal. Evangelization and teaching occurred in small groups because Temple leaders would not allow followers of Jesus into the Temple. As you know, Jewish leaders were rounding up “Christians” to executed. Being in communion involves the core beliefs but not everything held in church teaching is critical to the salvation of a Catholic. My Pastor has even said this.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 10:26 PM (EST):

Pat,

“In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.’ But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise ‘they were both naked, and were not ashamed,’ inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty… Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22 (A.D. 180).

Posted by ED on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 9:54 PM (EST):

[“Apparently for ED, Catholics (and non Catholics) are not allowed to dissect teachings and doctrine for it must be sinful.”]

Not sinful… but watching those with an obvious agenda attempt to lead a discussion on a Catholic site is a bit difficult to stomach.

[“Hey, ED, if you are that bothered with the participants, move to another blog.”]

Bothered…. hmm-m… no… more like *saddened* to think how little they know and how difficult it must be to live with such *ignorance*.

BTW… no move is planned.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 9:38 PM (EST):

Lector,
Sorry for the confusio, but I was not referring to St. Ambrose when I was speaking of the post-apostolic age. However, St. Ambrose is a doctor of the Church.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 9:35 PM (EST):

Lector,
There were always clergy, and this is obvious from the scriptures themselves as the apostles were the first bishops who ordained successors. There was always a form of ecclesiastical law starting with Christs own words following on through to Pentecost and the first Apostolic Council. I am troubled that you call yourself Catholic but reject that Peter was pope. To be Catholic means to be in communion with what the universal Church teaches. As for priests speaking from the pulpit, if you read St Justin Martyr AD 110-165, he describes the Mass with a homily.

Posted by Lector at Mass on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 9:24 PM (EST):

@Irenaeus: St. Ambrose lived in the 4th century. So he is not one generation post apostolic.

Posted by Lector at Mass on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 9:19 PM (EST):

And then there’s ED again who is incapable of holding an intelligent conversation (even among Catholics). The early church held many conversations about the gospel of Jesus, the Scriptures and all that was meant in the homes of early Christians. There was no clergy speaking from a pulpit, no pope nor was there canon law. Apparently for ED, Catholics (and non Catholics) are not allowed to dissect teachings and doctrine for it must be sinful. Hey, ED, if you are that bothered with the participants, move to another blog.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 9:10 PM (EST):

Lector,
The Marian Dogmas demand your assent if you are Catholic, so it does matter. I suggest you do more research on Mary because I think you will find that the doctrines are not as radical as you think. Remember that the post-apostolic age means people taught directly by the apostles or a generation after. There testimony has weight.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 9:04 PM (EST):

Pat,
The easiest way to find out what the Catholic Church authoritatively teaches is the Roman Catholic Catechism. It is loaded with footnotes and references. It is a compendium of the Faith.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 9:02 PM (EST):

Pat,

As I said, any faithful Catholic can be elected pope, even through its not likely to happen to someone outside the college of cardinals. Celibacy is a disciplinary rule, not a dogma of the Faith. Therefore we have several Catholic Rites which have married priests. However, for the Roman Rite, celibacy is the rule. Peter was married, but he lived continently. Just as Joseph and Mary did. The other apostles and even St. Paul are known to have been celibate. It is not that celibacy is superior to marriage. This is not the claim, because the Church exalts marriage to a sacrament and yet consecrated virginity is not. However, celibacy points to the heavenly state where there is no marriage and where the goal is perfect communion with God. It is giving up everything for the Lord.

Posted by ED on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 8:34 PM (EST):

Ugh…what a *pitiful* thread this has turned out to be. Just a complete smorgasbord of silly and random questions, thoughts, and comments.

Sad to see,,, and so-o-o very hard to understand why any Catholic at NCRegister would be so naive and gullible to swallow the *bait* and continue to participate in this complete folly.

Oh well… discernment must now be a rare commodity. LOL

Posted by Lector at Mass on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 8:21 PM (EST):

@Iraneous: My in-laws are Evangelicals and hold nothing in common with mainstream Protestants. This is why the mainline (high churches) are rapidly in decline. Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian and Episcopal —all in declining membership. Any church that supports gay marriage, OK’s gay clergy or women pastors are all apostate. Bible-based churches like the Southern Baptists remain growing along with independent Evangelicals because they follow the Bible. Sure, there remain doctrinal differences between these churches and Catholicism, but the topic of Maryology is a chasm too wide to cross. She is respected and honored but Catholic tradition developed post the apostolic age (in later centuries) is not conclusive, not from the apostles hard for non-Catholics to accept as believable. The theology about Mary is at best, hypothetical. Still, even though I am Catholic, my salvation is not depended upon accepting or rejecting this belief. Christianity has all to do with the blood of Jesus shed on the cross as payment for my sins and His resurrection. Beyond that, we are wasting our time in unproductive speculation. John Paul II’s obsession with Mary has taken our focus away from the primacy of Christ as Our Savior. His roots were too European for Americans.

Posted by Pam on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 8:12 PM (EST):

Pat, Tera and Lector, What Ed may be trying to get across is that God’s ways are not man’s ways. You are trying to have physical proof of lots of matters of faith or matters that were enunciated by very holy men, inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit reveals things to prayerful holy people. They get an understanding of things they could not come to understand by normal methods. They sometimes have visions, hear God or Mary speak to them, see their guardian angels. There is a whole spiritual world many people don’t even realize exists. So when you doubt tradition you doubt knowledge gained through these kinds of gifts given to men and women by God. If you sit before Jesus truly present in the Eucharist with faith in His presence there you may experience a little of what these great saints experienced. It is very real and it is not in the Bible. Paul, for instance, came to know Jesus through God’s supernatural act of blinding light and speaking to Him. Paul then goes on to speak of things He only knows through what Jesus has personally revealed to him. Paul isn’t the only person this has happened to. It would take alot of study to learn all they all contributed. But DeMontfort uses alot of footnotes. You need faith in what the Church has passed down. It has been analyzed by thousands of holy scholars for centuries. We are around for seventy years or so. The questions you raise have been asked and answered many times over. Have faith. God bless.

Posted by Pat on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 7:04 PM (EST):

Irenaeus,
If “The pope can be any faithful Catholic” how come we don’t see a married Roman Catholic man ever be a pope?
Doesn’t this strike you as strange that Peter was married and yet he was supposedly a pope? According to my understanding of the requirements for being a pope, Peter would fail. Agreed?

Posted by Pat on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 7:00 PM (EST):

Irenaeus,
I’m still trying to figure out how this interpretive authority of the RCC works. When i ask a Catholic what is the official interpretation of a verse or passage of the Scripture means I find there is none. There is no official interpretation by your church to be found. Throughout this blog for example, Catholics make interpretative claims about what a passage or verse of the Bible but none can tell me what the official interpretation of your church is. Since this is the case, how do you know what the meaning of a passage means if there is no official interpretation by your church?

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 6:42 PM (EST):

Terah,
1) He was listing successors.Irenaeus writes of Peter as bishop of Rome elsewhere.
2) The vote you are speaking of was not on infallibiliy itself, but on whether the coucil should vote on it at all. Over 700 bishops attended, and the doctrine was confirmed by 533 of them. All the bishops in the world gave their assent to the council after all was said and done.
3) The pope can be any faithful Catholic.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 6:20 PM (EST):

Terah,
1)Nothing is clear in the New Testament without and interpretive authority. Hence the 35000 protestant flavors of Christianity who differ so much on fundamentals they have schism. Ordaining openly gay ministers and female bishops. Even though it is the popular wisdom of the world the Catholic Church will always resist doctrinally false positions.
2)Tiny t traditions are not de fide doctrines. There is communion even if there is disagreement. We are still one, holy, catholic and apostolic. The protestants do not maintain communion with each other and have no standard or interprative authority. The bible is a set of books, not an interpretive authority. So it is apples and oranges.

Posted by Terah James on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 6:08 PM (EST):

I was at the library last night, and browsed through a book on the papacy.
It was very interesting. A few things I remembered are:

1- According to Iranaeus’ own list of the first 12 popes, the first recorded pope in Rome was Linus, in 70AD. Peter was not on his list.

2- When papal infallibility was voted upon at Vatican I, the majority of bishops (many from the USA, and all the Eastern rite bishops too) just left PRIOR to the vote being taken, because they did not want to go on record for anything. This is like when a city councilman plans to go into politics, and he/she just doesn’t show up to cast a vote, when the issue is controversial, and may come back to bite them later, career-wise.

3- I saw a painting of Pope Paul III, in the mid-1500’s, and it was he that began the Council of Trent. The painting was by the famous artist Titian, and standing with the pope were his two “grandsons”, one of them identified as being a “Cardinal”. I thought celibacy was made mandatory in the mid-12 century.

That’s all I can remember so far, but - I’m wondering, what gives? This book was written with tons of footnotes, and by a historian. Very credible. I too, appreciate that questions can be raised in this venue, without fear of flack or fall-out. Thank you, in advance.

Posted by Terah James on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 5:57 PM (EST):

To Irenaeus of New York, who wrote, “There is no definitive list. Not all traditions are capital T, as in from the apostles and Christ. Some are tiny t traditions, in that we are not certain of their origin and could be later accretions that were added to help teach a theological position.”

Two questions for you:
1) How do the “tiny t traditions” differ from all the times in the New Testament Epistles we are warned to stay away from “some new doctrine”?

I ask, because the entire Deposit of Faith, contained in the Bible, is clear. While the word, “Trinity” is not there, the CONCEPT surely is. And everything needed for *Salvation* is clear, in the New Testament. All the dogma about Mary, or St. Louis de Monfort’s musings is NOT a requirement for Salvation. In fact, I find his writings, and others, like “some new doctrine”. and

2) How are all the Catholic “tiny t traditions” different from what Catholics say about non-Catholics, the “separated brethern”, that are often criticized for having 30,000 different denominations. Seems like Catholics do the same thing, under the label of Big “T” and tiny “t”.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 5:54 PM (EST):

It might have been Denzinger and not Ott. I think Ott wrote something else that was informative, and I cant remember.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 5:48 PM (EST):

Pat,

The analogy with the Pope is faulty. I never said these were de fide doctrines of the Church. I never said they were binding. The opinion of the Church fathers is important though because their writings expound on the Tradition received from the regional churches where they lived.

However, for your edification, Otts “Sources of Catholic Dogma” is one way of finding the sources of Catholic doctrines whether they be tradition or scripture.

Posted by Pat on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 2:04 PM (EST):

Irenaeus,
Since there is no official church document that tells you specifically what these Traditions are then you can’t really claim there is any substance to these Traditions. This means there is no way to separate speculations from fact.
As for the church fathers, who says that they were speaking for the entire church at the time or if they were correct? Compare this with today where the pope speaks for all Roman Catholics because of his position in your church. Am I to believe these fathers held the same position of authority as a pope?

Here is the site where I got the comment from the NASB. Its at the bottom of the page:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PPF.HTM

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 12:08 PM (EST):

Pat,
I don’t think the Church does officially in documents. Nor does she require the faithful to believe it. However, this is not a weak theological opinion because it is echoed by Church fathers throughout the ages and is supported by Sacred Scripture.

Posted by Lector at Mass on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 10:44 AM (EST):

@ED: I find this a helpful and informative discussion. I see no evidence of trolling or someone attempting to irritate the other. Furthermore, unlike some topics, there are no atheists in here causing irritation. As a Catholic, such topics are never addressed or questioned in my parish. You appear afraid to have any questions raised. Since you are uncomfortable personally, there is no need for your participation encouraging people to shut the topic down. God bless you.

Posted by Pat on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 10:42 AM (EST):

Irenaeus,
Can you show me where the church officially teaches that Jeremiah and John the Baptist were born without original sin? Even Augustine’s comment is speculation.

Posted by ED on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 2:38 AM (EST):

And the chatter continues…

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 2:25 AM (EST):

Pat,
I did not find that comment on the USCCB website commentary for the NAB however, I did find this with regard to Jer1:5.

“Knew, with affection, and designed thee for this office for eternity. Many think that Jeremias was purified from original sin before his birth.”
S. Augustine commenting on Jeremiah (A.D. ~390)

Posted by ED on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 2:19 AM (EST):

So… this must be a case of Mr. Pride versus Mr. Pride loving to see their silly words/comments in print.

It’s definitely a reasonable explanation for this continued useless chatter…

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 2:08 AM (EST):

Pat,
There is no definitive list. Not all traditions are capital T, as in from the apostles and Christ. Some are tiny t traditions, in that we are not certain of their origin and could be later accretions that were added to help teach a theological position.

Posted by ED on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 2:07 AM (EST):

Pat:

The help you need must come from a *higher* source.

Good luck…

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 2:01 AM (EST):

The commentary of the NAB is flawed in many areas. That is just one of them. They are done by textual critics and academics. Many of whom dont even believe in the Lord. The translation is fine, but I would beware the commentary.

Posted by Pat on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 1:54 AM (EST):

Irenaeus,
Is there a list of all the Traditions of the RCC that shows where they originated and who started them? This would help me to see the distinctions between them and Scripture.

Posted by Pat on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 1:52 AM (EST):

Irenaeus,
Here is what the New American Bible (Catholic Bible) says about Jer 1:5:
“Jeremiah was destined to the office of prophet before his birth; cf ? Isaiah 49:1, 5; ? Luke 1:15; ? Gal 1:15, ? 16. I knew you: I loved you and chose you. I dedicated you: I set you apart to be a prophet. Some Fathers and later theologians understand this to mean that Jeremiah was freed from original sin before his birth. The context does not justify this conclusion….”

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 1:51 AM (EST):

Pat,
It is possible to pass down over centuries because the Church has protected tradition by rooting it in practices, devotions, hymns, iconography, etc, and of course the Holy Writ. And it was passed down an interpretive authority through apostolic succession as represented by the keys given to Peter in Mt16:19 and echoed in Isa22:22 when the High Priest passed on the keys to the next High Priest in dynastic succession.

Posted by ED on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 1:49 AM (EST):

Irenaeus:

What are you trying to prove?

Don’t you understand the game being played?

Time to stop…

Posted by Pat on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 1:44 AM (EST):

Irenaeus,
You claim that there is no conflicts between scripture and tradition. What “tradition” of the apostles taught that Mary was sinless and queen of heaven?

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 1:37 AM (EST):

Pat,

Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations.”

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 1:33 AM (EST):

Pat,
The Trinity is supported by scripture because scripture came from Tradition. There can be no conflicts between scripture and tradition. Those in the early church who did not have tradition but only scripture, began heresies that rejected the nature of the Godhead.

Posted by Pat on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 1:30 AM (EST):

The passage in “Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy “He shall be a Nazarene” is oral tradition” does not necessarily mean this was some kind of oral tradition that was handed down by word of mouth for centuries. Do you think this is possible?

Posted by Pat on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 1:18 AM (EST):

Irenaeus,
The apostles did not pass down a Tradition on the Trinity. The Trinitarian doctrine is derived from various passages from Scripture.
Where does it say in Scripture where Mary, Jeremiah and John the Baptist were “sanctified in the womb”?
I’m looking for the source of this claim. Is it based in the facts of Scripture or the speculations of men?
Your response on conception and birth still does not nullify what Rom 5:12 says that all men have sinned. This would include Mary and all human beings conceived by a man and a woman.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 1:10 AM (EST):

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 1:05 AM (EST):

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy “He shall be a Nazarene” is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 1:02 AM (EST):

“Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.”
St.Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,5,1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 1:00 AM (EST):

“The apostles at that time first preached the Gospel but later by the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith.”
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

Posted by ED on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 12:46 AM (EST):

It’s obvious that some on this thread *first* need to read (and truly understand) a general article like this before they even bother to get involved in commenting at a *Catholic* site like NCRegister:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/solascri.txt

It would eliminate so much of this useless chatter…

Posted by Lector at Mass on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 12:44 AM (EST):

@Irenaeus: You are hanging by a thread attempting to defend the indefensible. Purgatory is not found in Scripture but is part of Catholic tradition. Yet the idea of Purgatory runs explicitly counter to what St. Paul’s letters tell us. The Catholic church tells us the entire Bible is God’s word. So why is their theology at odds with Paul’s teaching?

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 12:40 AM (EST):

Pat,

One clarification, when I said they were sanctified in the womb, I meant Jeremiah and John the Baptist. As you probably know the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was sanctified at the moment she was conceived.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 12:34 AM (EST):

Pat,

A simple example of Tradition passed down that is not in scripture would be the Trinity. The word is not found in scripture, but it is a theological truth. Tertullian was using the word in 200 AD, and it was recieved by him from the Catholic Church.

Posted by Lector at Mass on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 12:33 AM (EST):

@Irenaeus: Your assertion is unsubstantiated. There is no evidence that someone “filled with the Spirit” rests in a perfect state of grace (and without sin). Mary herself declared her own need to be saved in the Magnificat. When you received the sacrament of Confirmation, the priest or bishop says to you “Receive the Holy Spirit” —then he marks your forehead with the sign of the cross with chrism oil. Have you sinned in your life after having received the Holy Spirit? Likewise, after the apostles received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, did they never sin in the remainder of their lives? The apostles never “passed down” this nonsense of Tradition because it’s not true. You will not find the apostles in ACTS supporting what you claim they handed down.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 12:30 AM (EST):

Pat,

St. Paul is correct. No man was conceived without sin. But conceived without sin is not the same thing as born without sin. Conceived is at conception.

Stephen was full of grace, but he was not the human Ark of the New Covenant that housed Holiness and clothed Purity with Flesh.

The church fathers say that they were born without sin, not conceived without sin. They were sanctified in the womb.

Posted by Pat on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 12:21 AM (EST):

Irenaeus,
What specifically is the “sacred Tradition which was passed down from the apostles” that is not found in the Scripture? Can you give me a specific example?

Posted by Pat on Friday, Mar, 16, 2012 12:19 AM (EST):

Irenaeus,
You are misinterpreting those passages. No one is born sinless because of what Paul writes in Romans 5:12—” Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—” Other verses to look at are found in Romans 3:9 and 23. All men since Adam are conceived in sin except the Lord Jesus. He did not have a human father but was conceived of by the HS. Only He alone is without sin.
Being full of grace does not make one sinless. Stephen was said to be full of grace and power in Acts 6:8. Should we think that he was sinless all his life?

Is this official RCC teaching that Jeremiah and John the Baptist were without sin?

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2012 11:43 PM (EST):

Pat,

Jeremiah was born sinless (Jer 1:5). So was John the Baptist(Lk 1:41), and so was Mary (Lk 1:28). These are all scriptural. When the Holy Ghost overshadows someone in the womb, sin cannot co-exist. When an Angel of the Lord say you are “graced” or “full of grace” and salutes you, then you are in a perfect state of grace. If you are full of grace, there is no room for sin. Secondly, the Deposit of Faith for Catholics is not scripture alone, but also sacred Tradition which was passed down from the apostles. Therefore it is not speculation for us. Some of these traditions were written down and they became the Holy Scripture.

Posted by Pat on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2012 11:08 PM (EST):

Irenaeus,
We have no choice but to limit ourselves to what we know about Mary to Scripture. To go beyond that is to speculate. I have no problem with Jesus being the 2nd Adam but not Mary being some kind of sinless being. That is not taught in Scripture. Mary was fallen just like the rest of us because her parents were sinners and there is no record in Scripture of Mary being conceived without sin.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2012 10:37 PM (EST):

Terah,

You are right to say that Mary is not part of the Trinity. Catholics do not include Mary in the Trinity either. Secondly, just because Adam and Eve were married, does not mean the second Adam and Eve had to be. The sacrament of marriage does not exist in Heaven. So marriage plays no purpose for the mission of the second Adam and Eve. The purpose of marriage was begetting the human race. The only begetting by the second Adam is through baptismal grace.

Posted by Terah James on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2012 10:16 PM (EST):

Lector can correct me, but I think what he/she means is this:
While Jesus IS the “New Adam”, it does not necessarily play out that Mary is the “new Eve”. All men were subject to death, because one man sinned -Adam. Many will be saved, through One Man, Jesus, the Lamb of God whose death on the cross satisfied the wrath of His holy Father, and on our behalf. It is correct, and provable in Scripture to make a comparison between Adam and Jesus.

But there is no need for a “new Eve”, and to carry out the analogy leads us on a slippery slope, because Adam and Eve were married. I think it’s where some Catholics will say Mary is the “Spouse” of the Holy Spirit (again, wrong), because it is the entire Church, that is the Bride of Christ, waiting for Her Groom, Jesus. There is no individual “Marriage” in Heaven, and it carries out that Mary is NOT “married” to the Holy Spirit. Again, that’s just silly.

The Triune Godhead is made up of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, co-equal, co-eternal, co-existent, and Mary is not in that equasion. She’s just one of us, granted, a special person in the Church, the Body of Christ.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2012 10:08 PM (EST):

Pat,

Don’t limit yourself to a verse, but compare the whole stories and what they accomplished Jesus vs Adam and Mary vs Eve. The clearest single verse would be St Paul in 1Cor 15:45 and onward.

Adam and Eve came into this world sinless. Jesus and Mary came into this world sinless. Mary by her obedience introduced man to salvation as opposed to Eve’s disobedience introduced man to sin. Jesus passed Satans test, where Adam failed when tested. Adam lost communion with God. Jesus restored it. Jesus restores fallen man by conquering sin. Adam curses man by bringing sin and death to the world. Adam begets children who are the human race. Jesus begets spiritual children through baptism who are the Church. The are many more parallels, but you can start there.

Posted by Terah James on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2012 10:06 PM (EST):

If Mary is the “new Eve”, given grace to do everything God asked of her from her conception, why didn’t God just do that with Eve, in the beginning? Why the drama of the Fall? God knew what was to happen. He could have avoided it, by making Eve like Mary, from the get-go.

Secondly, why do so many Catholics have no trouble believing extra-biblical teachings of people that lived umpteen years ago (that were NOT alive when the Deposit of Faith was compiled, in Scripture) like obscure books called, “The Mystical City of God” by the obsure Venerable Mary of Jesus? I’ve never heard of either of them.

Thirdly, who teaches salvation is “passed on” through the Church? Doesn’t anyone place any value on what New Testament epistles teach us about it?

Fourthly, if Mary forms us to be like Jesus, what is the Holy Spirit doing? Twiddling His Thumbs? Are we not transformed and sanctified by the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

Frankly, Mary is portrayed by some writers in this blog as an overbearing mother that still has a teen-age Jesus tied to her apron-strings; if she’s the Holy Spirit’s “spouse”, she’s not the kind of woman Paul writes about- she’s The Boss, not her husband.

Yet, she’s Bathsheba. Go figure. I don’t buy it. Can’t this just be simple? Why all the extra-biblical mumbo jumbo? The Bible makes sense. This blog, does not. But I now know where the Maryology stuff originates.

Posted by Pat on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2012 9:18 PM (EST):

Can someone point me to what passage of Scripture that the RCC has officially interpreted to mean that Mary is the second Eve?

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2012 8:54 PM (EST):

“The prophet David danced before the Ark. Now what else should we say the Ark was but holy Mary? The Ark bore within it the tables of the Testament, but Mary bore the Heir of the same Testament itself. The former contained in it the Law, the latter the Gospel. The one had the voice of God, the other His Word. The Ark, indeed, was radiant within and without with the glitter of gold, but holy Mary shone within and without with the splendor of virginity. The one was adorned with earthly gold, the other with heavenly”
St. Ambrose of Milan (339-397 AD), Serm. xlii. 6

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2012 8:52 PM (EST):

Lector,

There is no marriage in heaven, so you are drawing the wrong conclusions. Rodolfo is absolutely correct in saying Jesus is the second Adam and Mary the second Eve.

Posted by Loud on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2012 8:48 PM (EST):

Hey all speaking of poetry, I would really appreciate you checking out one of my works. It is dedicated to the Blessed Mother,

http://www.teenink.com/poetry/all/article/439617/Our-Maiden-Mother/

If you already looked at it, could you please go back and rate it too? A poems standing on the site is determined by votes and comments, and I would like to know your thoughts!

P.S. If you like that one, be sure to check out the other poems by me ( LoudDreamer ) on that site!

Posted by Loud on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2012 8:38 PM (EST):

ED,
For some crazy reason, it sound normal to call ol’ Papa John JPII, but it sounds weird to call Papa Bene B16…. Is that a chess move? Oh, well. He would probably laugh to hear it.

And Terah James,
She dosent “re-deliver” Him any more than Christ “re-comes” from Israel. He came from Israel, His mother delivered him. Don’t use a double standard in your logic. Like someone (I can’t find the comment) said already, she is the Queen because she is Jesus’s mother. We honor her because God honored her. We make her a part of our life because we were commanded to. Jesus said to Mary and John(who was the beloved Apostle):

“‘Woman, behold your son!’ Then He said to the disciple, ‘Behold your mother!’ And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.”

So we, in imitation of the one who Jesus loved, take her into our home. He wasn’t merely giving Mary to John so she would be taken care of, He also gave her to all of us so she could be a mother to us. This was his dying wish.

And Lector,
Mary isn’t married to Jesus! Haven’t you ever read a poem? Haven’t you ever heard of medaphores or similes?

I am a lamp, I am bright(I’m kinda smart) but I have a lamp-shade(I’m shy), My light goes on and off by a switch(I don’t always think), and I love to and I beleive the purpose of my light is to shine on others(use what intelligence I have to show other people they have good things about them too).

That is a metaphore, but try as I may, I have no idea what to use the cord for!

But seriously. Mary is the New Eve because she assisted in reversing what Eve had done. Eve Came from Adam’s side, Jesus came from Mary’s womb. Eve obeied the devil and Adam did too, Mary did what God asked through Gabrial and Jesus did too. Eve and Adam disobeyied God and introduced sin and through Adam passed it on, Mary and Jesus obeyied perfectly and though the Church passed on Salvation. I can go on and on, but I won’t. And don’t go sayin that some of them are opposites(we said “new”, didn’t we?).

Posted by Pam on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2012 8:12 PM (EST):

@ Lector, Jesus is God. To Jesus Through Mary is the phrase St. Louis de Montfort uses. Mary is full of grace. And she cooperated perfectly with that grace. She was ” a worthy Mother of God.” And so greatly loved by Jesus. In DeMontfort’s way, we ask Mary to be with us, pray with us, work with us so that whatever we do it is more pleasing with her, His beloved Mother there. That is not childhood pipedream, but a spiritual reality many people see the fruits of every day. And per Jesus, “Unless you accept the kingdom like little children…” Please don’t be so wise you lose your childlike trust and faith and dependence on God. By the way, it is not “adult” to put down comments as antagonistically as you do. As to your comment to Rodolofo, Mary is the Second Eve in the sense of being God’s answer to Eve’s fall, not in her marital relation to Adam. It is your own mind that has travelled a tawdry path. There is so much to discover in God’s revelations we will spend eternity doing it.

Posted by Lector at Mass on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2012 7:39 PM (EST):

@Rodolofo F. Pineda: If I understand you, the Cross and Resurrection of Christ are then of lower tier importance to our salvation. In your words: “Mary is the Second Eve and Jesus is the Second Adam.” Jesus is now married to Mary? The Lord of all eternity is now married to His earthly mother? That’s totally without biblical foundation. How sick are you?

Posted by ED on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2012 7:38 PM (EST):

[“I wonder why we should accept Montfort as more credible than what Pat is saying?”]

Well, for one thing… I simply don’t ever recall JPII or B16 ever discussing or quoting Pat. Do you?

[“Even though I was educated in Catholic grammar and high school, I always struggled with this church teaching about Mary.”]

Sorry to hear you are having such difficulties. Many people have difficulty understanding St. Louis de Montfort. Would it help you to know that at one time even JPII & B16 had a little difficulty? And they, of course, were both very highly educated.

Something to ponder?

In any case… if it’s meant for you to understand - you will.

In the meantime… just do your best. God loves you.

Posted by Rodolfo F. Pineda on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2012 6:42 PM (EST):

I recommend you read “The Mystical City of God,” by the Venerable
Mary of Jesus to know exactly how it came that Mary became Queen of
Heaven and Earth, and why She is so extremely important for our salvation!
After you read the entire Life of Jesus,Mary and the Catholic Church
you should understand why we’re here as Soldiers of Christ in a very
real spiritual war between the forces of good and evil. God bless all
who believe that Mary is the Mother of Jesus, the Holy Catholic Church
and of all the living…She is the Second Eve and Jesus is the Second
Adam!

Posted by Doug on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2012 6:34 PM (EST):

Posted by In the pew:
“probably few Catholics themselves actually have a true understanding of the Davidic definition of “Queen.””

My experience has been that very few Catholics have a true understanding of any RCC doctrine. Many recall Cathechism teachings- mostly rote learning in parochial school or catechism class. Hebrew is beyond them- and me. However, we do have the modern tools available.
I have many times heard and read the phrase “Queen of Heaven” applied to Mary. Nothing about ‘Davidic definitions’; always the application has been to Mary’s current alleged status as a superior person in heavenly hierarchies, (IOW, ‘what part of ‘Queen’ didn’t I understand? :-) )
The biblical term is found several times in Jeremiah, in a (ahem) jeremiad against apostate Judah: “Because of the wickedness which they have committed, to provoke me to wrath, and to go and offer sacrifice, and worship other gods, which neither they, nor you, nor your fathers knew.”
E.g. Jer 44:18. “to sacrifice to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings to her,”
newadvent.org’s excellent Bible has “reginæ” for the Latin and (my approx.) ‘basilaan’ for the Greek. The Hebrew, per Strong, is his H4446, m?leketh, also queen. All mean queen as in ‘consort of a king’, not ‘mother of a king.

Thus my scriptural research shows that the RCC label for Mary as “Queen of Heaven” has no basis in any scripture. It is a man-made label generated by the same false religious impulses that operated in ancient Israel, just before the Babylonian boom was lowered.

Posted by Lector at Mass on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2012 6:19 PM (EST):

@Pam: “she can help us better than any intercessor to become children of God.” **AND** “St. Louis asks mom’s help in speaking with God - not out of fear, but realizing it would be more pleasing to God.”
.

Better and (more) pleasing than Jesus as our intecessor who is acutally making interession for us daily? Think about what you are actually saying!!

.
Pam, your comments sound more like a childhood pipe dream. I also was trained by the nuns in Catholic grammar school. The difference is that I graduated and am now an adult.

Posted by Doug on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2012 6:07 PM (EST):

ED posts: “Montfort insists then that Jesus, the Eternal and Incarnate Wisdom, “shares his power with his holy mother” (TD 76).”
Mt 28:18, Douay: “And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: ALL power is given to me in heaven and in earth.”
As an example of this still being the case, see Rev 5:
“And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb ... And they sung a new canticle, saying: You are worthy, O Lord, to take the book and to open the seals thereof:”

And many others; no sign of Mary- or the Holy Spirit, for that matter.

Posted by Pam on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2012 6:05 PM (EST):

These are good responses to the readers questions, Mark. Very clear and to the point. As a member of a Louis DeMontfort cenacle, it has been pointed out to me that we need Mary because just as she was the physical mother of Jesus, her body being used to form Him in the womb, she is our spiritual mother forming us spiritually to His likeness if we let her. As someone totally human but also full of grace and having lived her entire life without sinning, she can help us better than any intercessor to become children of God. In the devotion St. Louis does everything through Mary out of humility, realizing he has so often offended the Lord or has so many sinful ways he would be presumptuous to go to Him one on one. Like a child who has aggravated Dad or big brother all day long, St. Louis asks mom’s help in speaking with God - not out of fear, but realizing it would be more pleasing to God. So Mary is a blessing and not a stumbling block dear reader. I pray you receive the grace to understand that.

Posted by Terah James on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2012 5:09 PM (EST):

Everyone with an ounce of common sense would know the “Woman” in the Book of Revelation is “Israel”. The “child” is the Messiah, that came from Israel. The prophecy of that is all over the Old Testament.

The woman in Revelation is not Mary. Mary does not get re-pregnant with Jesus, and re-deliver Him in child-birth. Again, that’s just silly. How Bible-illiterate do Catholics have to be, to buy into such silliness?

Lector at Mass points out there is a conflict between what Montfort wrote and what Paul writes in his letters. Think about that. Think, well… if you are able.

Posted by Terah James on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2012 5:01 PM (EST):

Do you mean to tell me that Mary as “Queen Mother” in the Davidic manner of thinking, gives her the role held by Bathsheba?????????? Oh, my word!!
Poor Mary. The Blessed Mother said all generations would call her “blessed”. I do call her blessed. I honor Mary. Never in a million years would it ever occur to me to compare her to Bathsheba!! Everything Mary chose in her life was worthy of honor, most of all, her ability to raise Jesus, who, if we take the example to its logical conclusion, is a modern-day Solomon? Who is God the Father? David? This is just silly. It’s Catholic silliness. I’ll have none of it. Think people, think.

Posted by Lector at Mass on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2012 1:27 PM (EST):

@ED: You quote Montfort writing: . . . “mediatrix on behalf of men,” Even though I was educated in Catholic grammar and high school, I always struggled with this church teaching about Mary. The church teaches many things which we are not required to believe nor are some teachings a condition of salvation. This is one of them. Montfort’s assertion is in direct conflict with Paul’s letter in 1 Timothy 2:5 “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Since the church teaches the Bible is the inspired word of God —I must reject Montfort’s mediatrix claim (saintly or not) and follow Paul as truth.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2012 1:38 AM (EST):

Pat,

Yes, I agree the chapter also strongly references the Church. However, in this passage Mary becomes a figure of the Church in verse 1. Mary is the mother of Christ, and since the Church IS the mystical Body of Christ, then Mary is also mother of the Church. I believe that is why John is using this imagery.

Posted by Lector at Mass on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2012 1:28 AM (EST):

@ED: I wonder why we should accept Montfort as more credible than what Pat is saying? As a Catholic I have read various commentaries on Revelation. Each have viewpoints worthy of consideration. Because Montfort is Catholic does not mean his interpretation is correct. The Book of Revelation is worthy of further examination to understand all these events.

Posted by ED on Wednesday, Mar, 14, 2012 11:59 PM (EST):

[Montfort insists then that Jesus, the Eternal and Incarnate Wisdom, “shares his power with his holy mother” (TD 76). “Such is the will of the Almighty who exalts the humble, that the heavens, the earth and hell itself, willingly or unwillingly, must obey the commands of the humble Virgin Mary. For God has made her queen of heaven and earth, leader of his armies, keeper of his treasures, dispenser of his graces, worker of his wonders, restorer of the human race, mediatrix on behalf of men, destroyer of his enemies and faithful associate in his great works and triumphs” (TD 28; H 77:8, 81:6). The saint underlines, therefore, that “Whatever belongs to Jesus by nature, belongs to Mary by grace” (TD 74). The governing of the universe takes place through Jesus and belongs to him by nature as the incarnate Son of God. Mary, the inseparable companion of Jesus, even “of his glory and of his power in heaven and on earth” (TD 74), shares by grace in this role of the Incarnate Wisdom. Providence, then, governs us through Jesus Christ in union with his mother, Mary.]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/montfort/Handbook/Provid.htm

Posted by Pat on Wednesday, Mar, 14, 2012 11:36 PM (EST):

Irenaeus,
Your interpretation of Rev 12 was not interpreted in the early church the way you have. The reason is there are a number of problems with associating this passage. The passage fits the church and not Mary. See verse 14 for example.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Wednesday, Mar, 14, 2012 11:10 PM (EST):

Pat,

Rev 12:1 references Mary directly.

“And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:”

Chapter 12 recalls the birth of Jesus. But notice how she has a crown of 12 stars emblematic of the 12 tribes or apostles. This is one of the reasons why she is mother of the Church.

Posted by Pat on Wednesday, Mar, 14, 2012 9:36 PM (EST):

R.C.
The problem with your explanation is that Mary is never referred to as a queen in the NT. There is not one NT writer that calls her queen and she was never known as a queen in the early centuries of church history.

Posted by In the pew on Wednesday, Mar, 14, 2012 6:42 PM (EST):

@R.C. That’s a good explanation. In fact, quite helpful. The Catholic church certainly hasn’t gone out of their way to make that clear to our Protestant bretheren. In fact, probably few Catholics themselves actually have a true understanding of the Davidic definition of “Queen.”

Posted by R.C. on Wednesday, Mar, 14, 2012 6:28 PM (EST):

Terah James:

You’ve misunderstood the Catholic usage of the word “queen.” The Catholic usage is Biblical, provided you know your Hebrew and your Old Testament.

Mary is not “queen” in Heaven in the sense of ruling monarch with none above. So in that sense, “queen” is a bad English translation of her official title as Jesus’ mother.

But she does have a title: The is (in Hebrew) the Gebireh, which is a Hebrew word for the mother of the king. In the Old Testament within the Davidic dynasty, the mother of the king does have a position of very high respect. (Read 1 Samuel through 2 Chronicles; it shows up several times, and English-language Bibles usually translate gebireh as “queen.”) The position is similar to that of the Queen-Mother in England, and with that position goes a societal role of petitioning the king for mercy for the people.

So, don’t worry. By calling Mary the Gebireh in the Messianic kingdom, Catholics aren’t worshiping her or exaggerating her role; they’re just being Biblical, albeit with an equivocal English translation.

Posted by Terah James on Tuesday, Mar, 13, 2012 5:52 PM (EST):

Some of the comments on this blog I just found, are way over the top. It’s like the Holy Trinity was replaced, by Mary, who is everything to everyone, and at all times, for all eternity. She’s not a creature, like the rest of us. She’s been given attributes of God. How did that happen?

Catholics say they do not worship Mary, but it sure looks like they do, for many in this blog. I respect Mary. I call her “Blessed”. She is the virgin that gave birth to Jesus, the Son of God.

But after reading these posts, it’s like Mary was given a name change: to Mary-Baal! That can’t be pleasing to God. It can’t even be pleasing to Mary! Where’s the focus? Most certainly, the focus is not on Jesus here.
Jesus is our Heavenly God-King. There is no human Queen in Heaven.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Monday, Mar, 12, 2012 4:59 PM (EST):

@ITP
Yeah I get that a lot. Especially from Mark who has been kind enough to let me participate in this conversation. (Thanks Mark)

Good luck on your road to salvation ITP. If you’re really ‘in the pew’ I trust you’re on the right road. Just remember, if you ever find yourself stuck in a ditch, there is a woman with a chain that can help pull you out.

Posted by In the pew on Monday, Mar, 12, 2012 1:44 PM (EST):

@Craig Roberts: I am not looking for a new pew. You seem incapable of any intelligent response but only enjoy tossing grenades as subterfuge.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Monday, Mar, 12, 2012 1:30 PM (EST):

P@
whoa. That is extreme. I can see how someone might think that there was something wrong with it. But let’s look at the worst case scenario. Say you sincerely pray that prayer with the intention of giving yourself to Mary, as it says, ‘without reserve’. What will become of you? Where will she take you?

Mary is the only person that followed Jesus from his birth, to the foot of his cross, to Pentecost, and beyond. Not even the apostles (except John, and that’s probably because he was charged with taking care of Mary!) followed him to Golgotha. The hidden life of Christ in his first thirty years on earth are known to very few and none more than Mary. So if you tried with all you heart to follow Mary, where is it that you think you’d end up?

The plain truth is that people use Mary as an excuse to grouse about the Church. If they’re not Catholic they think they can show how the Church is corrupt by pointing to it’s devotion to Mary. Ironically (as Loud so eloquently pointed out) they would be considered heretics by their own Protestant forefathers.

So throw stones all you want, you can’t hit The Queen of Heaven. But just be honest, you’re really aiming at the Catholic Church.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Monday, Mar, 12, 2012 1:03 PM (EST):

@In the pew
Why? Are you looking for a new pew?

Posted by In the pew on Monday, Mar, 12, 2012 12:16 PM (EST):

@Craig Roberts who wrote: “If by ‘overboard’ you mean quitting the Church to join some voodoo cult that attempts to use Mary to perform magic . . .” Would you please be specific regarding your assertions? Is someone quitting the church? What voodoo cults are they joining?

Posted by Pat on Monday, Mar, 12, 2012 12:04 PM (EST):

Craig,
Came across this prayer at http://www.marypages.com/PrayerstoMary.htm.

“Mary has no wish or desire to replace her Son, to deminish the meaning and intent of His sacrifice, nor its Glory. When we honor her Son, we honor her automatically, when we pray to Him, she surely joins in our prayer. We pray to her as we do the other Saints and she will interceed for us…..Let’s not go over board.”

If by ‘overboard’ you mean quitting the Church to join some voodoo cult that attempts to use Mary to perform magic…very well said.

If you mean the type devotions espoused by the Church fathers, saints, and popes, since it’s inception…I’d have to differ to the Church.

“...one’s attitude toward schools of spirituality should be one of openness and tolerance, respecting the diversity of needs and charisms and approving whatever the Church approves.” Father Jordan Aumann O.P. from his book Spiritual Theology.

Posted by Linus on Monday, Mar, 12, 2012 8:08 AM (EST):

I think the problem is that some people and groups over-do their devotion to Mary. I am not an emotional or syrpy guy and I really get turned off by some of the Mary ” enthusists. ” There is entirely too much talk about ” Mediatrex, ” too much ” womb ” talk. Scripture no where even hints at Mediatrex. We have the Rosary, various devotions to Mary, etc. Mary has no wish or desire to replace her Son, to deminish the meaning and intent of His sacrifice, nor its Glory. When we honor her Son, we honor her automatically, when we pray to Him, she surely joins in our prayer. Let’s not go over board. We pray to her as we do the other Saints and she will interceed for us. But that is as far as it goes as far as I am concerned.

Posted by richard on Monday, Mar, 12, 2012 6:47 AM (EST):

Good post, Mark. And interesting comments.

Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Monday, Mar, 12, 2012 6:36 AM (EST):

“What’s great about Mariology is that you don’t have to limit yourself to what the Scriptures say but can say all kinds of things about her without any facts”
Why would the Disciples of Jesus limit ourselves to what Sacred Scripture says when Sacred Scripture itself says that the Master said and did many things “not recorded here”? As with the People of the Old Covenant, when the People of New Covenant became ready to deepen their understanding of the things of God, the Holy Spirit inspired the teachings and writings of the Magesterium, never contradicting Sacred Scripture, but always faithfully and richly illuminating it, exploring and unfolding it in its wonderful depths.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Monday, Mar, 12, 2012 2:55 AM (EST):

Pat, Pat, Pat, Pat, Pat….*sigh*....what ‘fact’ could you possibly require other than she was Jesus’ mother?

What’s great about Mariology is that you don’t have to limit yourself to what the Scriptures say but can say all kinds of things about her without any facts.

Posted by Ann on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 11:02 PM (EST):

Thank you! In this column, you answered questions that my Catholic Prayer Group has struggled and disagreed over for two years. Yea! For anwsers! Yea! For settling the questions! You really did explain that we needed to know!

Again, thank you!

Posted by Craig Roberts on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 10:30 PM (EST):

Thanks ED. You’re the best.

Posted by ED on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 9:54 PM (EST):

[“Also, following Jesus is hard. So hard that we need help. Mary gives us help. If you don’t need help following the commandments and carrying your crosses, good on ‘ya. You’re a better man than me.”]

Hmm-m… looks like some of my ‘old’ prayers for you might (?) actually be starting to finally work young man. [wink]

Good comment…

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 9:01 PM (EST):

I would also add that if you continue reading the Psalm you will see it describes the crucifixion. The casting of lots, the dividing of garments, the accusations and calumny, the calls for him to save himself, the feet and hands being bound, his thirst on the cross, the gentiles will adore him as the centurion did, and many more.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 9:00 PM (EST):

I would also add, that if you continue reading the Psalm you will see it describes the crucifixion. The casting of lots, the dividing of garments, the accusations and calumny, the calls for him to save himself, the feet and hands being bound, his thirst on the cross, the gentiles will adore him as the centurion did, etc, etc..

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 8:41 PM (EST):

@Craig Roberts: There is no sin in affluence but in the “use” of one’s affluence. As you have been blessed, so too, may you be a blessing to others. His will also states that “His own” will not be beggars at outlined in Psalm 37:25. And when we finally stop referring to Christ as a “baby boy” or the “baby Jesus?” The infant in the manger scene image is over. He is now King of Kings and Lord of Lords from everlasting to everlasting.

Posted by Jen on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 8:26 PM (EST):

Mark, one question, and forgive me if someone else already asked this. I haven’t scanned all the comments before me… but you said this: “If Jesus was not fully known as the Son of God, if even Mary did not fully grasp the truth about him till the Resurrection and Pentecost,”
Do we really think that Mary did not fully realize who Jesus was or grasp the truth about Him, as you put it? Gabriel told her the child would be conceived by the Holy Spirit, would be the Son of God and given the throne of his father, David. Surely she knew what all that meant. She knew exactly how He was conceived within her, so she knew He was God. She knew enough not to protest during His suffering and death. What do you mean when you say she didn’t fully grasp the truth about Him? Thanks.

Posted by Pat on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 7:39 PM (EST):

Not so fast Mr. Patton. We are just about to get into an interesting discussion and you leave. Surely your case against Christ can’t be that weak.
As for Jesus crying out on the cross it was not to Himself but His Father. If you had understood the trinitarian doctrine you would not have said He was talking to Himself.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 7:07 PM (EST):

@Mr. Patton
Was Jesus really asking a question or praying the Psalms? Considering his situation at the time, I would have to say that the latter is more probable.

Posted by Mr. Patton on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 6:53 PM (EST):

Well Pat I think the New Testament does have some truth left in it. I think Jesus asked one of the greatest questions that defined his nature; “Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani?” I will just take that as Him talking to Himself…:)

It was informative but there is really nothing left to discuss for me.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 6:49 PM (EST):

@Pew
HAH! I should be so lucky! To be rich AND to have kept all the commandments? (Mat 9:20) Pffft! Beggars can’t be choosers.

My point was not to interpret the gospel but to make the simple observation that Mary points to Jesus. Mary loves Jesus and she would never ‘distract’ us from him. When we approach her it is to humbly ask for a glimpse of her baby boy. It was either C. S. Lewis or G. K. Chesterton that pointed out that you cannot normally come to a child at all without going through the mother.

Also, following Jesus is hard. So hard that we need help. Mary gives us help. If you don’t need help following the commandments and carrying your crosses, good on ‘ya. You’re a better man than me.

Posted by Pat on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 6:24 PM (EST):

Mr. Patton,
What is the context of Numbers 23:19?
As for Jesus, He is both God and man. See also Irenaeus comment.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 5:46 PM (EST):

God does not lie as men do. God does not change as men do. A plain reading shows this was not talking about the nature of God.

Posted by Mr. Patton on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 5:29 PM (EST):

Pat, explain this verse from Numbers 23:19” God is not a man, that he should lie, nor is the son of man, that he should be changed.” and tell me how Jesus fits into this scripture?

Posted by Nick Milne on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 5:22 PM (EST):

And, of course, it did not. Oh well. One more try: </b> Here’s hoping.

Posted by In the pew on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 5:21 PM (EST):

@Craig Roberts who again takes Scripture out context by writing: “But who could argue with the advice, “Do whatever he (Jesus) tells you?” —-Then you, Mr. Craig Roberts have done likewise as Jesus told the rich, young man and have thus sold all that YOU have and given all your money and possessions to the poor? It is important to understand the gospel in context and know when Jesus (or Mary) is speaking to someone *directly*—-or to believers at large.

Posted by Nick Milne on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 5:20 PM (EST):

I have nothing much to add to this beyond attempting - in my usual heroic manner - to close the bold tag that’s been left open all night. </b> I hope that does the trick.

Posted by Pat on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 5:15 PM (EST):

Mr. Patton,
Go ahead and spoon feed me. I want to make sure you your claims are true or false in regards to Jesus not being the Messiah. So far what you have written gives me any reason to think you are right.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 5:02 PM (EST):

Mr Patton said - I am not interested in a biased discussion about material that is fairly black and white.

If it were black and white such that it supported your position, than you would enjoy the majority view. As I pointed out with the Septuagint, you take a position that sets your modern opinion above 70 Jewish rabbis who lived 200 years before Christ. If anyone is taking a biased opinion, it is not me.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 4:56 PM (EST):

Mr. Patton,
As for your citation of Isaiah, the Church is the new Jerusalem, and the 12 apostles signify the new tribes which now include all of the nations, both gentile and Jew. Just as the word Catholic means universal, so Isaiah 43:5-6 was fulfilled for our Church because the good news is recieved by all nations and peoples. It was not foreshadowing a gathering of Jews back to Israel, but a gathering into the bosom of the Church.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 4:53 PM (EST):

Mr Patton,
In regards to your citation of Ezekiel. Scripture tells us that the body of Christ is a temple, Jn 2:19-21, and that the temple of Zorababel will be torn down. He fulfills the prophecy of raising a new temple, of His body, through His resurrection on the third day.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 4:51 PM (EST):

Mr Patton,

I dont mind if you wish to ignore my posts. There is value in addressing your questions regardless of your feelings toward me. Because you are not the only one reading the posts.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 4:45 PM (EST):

Mr Patton,

In regards to your citation of Ezekiel. Scripture tells us that the body of Christ is a temple (Jn 2:19-21) and that the temple of Zorababel will be torn down. He fulfills the prophecy of raising a new temple (of His body) through His resurrection on the third day. When his Body was crucified, the temple of Zorababel had a curtain protecting the Holy of Holies which was torn in two from top to bottom. Alternatively, you can also just point to 70 AD destruction if you require a more literal tearing down of the temple.

Posted by Mr. Patton on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 4:44 PM (EST):

I don’t want to be rude to you, Irenaeus but I saw something in Pat from his post that I wanted to connect with. I am not interested in a biased discussion about material that is fairly black and white. It really would be an exercise in futility that I don’t have to time to indulge in. I am interested in the cognitive reasoning process that was demonstrated.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 4:35 PM (EST):

Alma is not a mistranslation. 70 greek speaking Rabbis agreed on translating it as virgin circa 250 BC in the Septuagint. A young woman of marrying age is always a virgin, if she is not a virgin, then there are other harsh words to describe the woman back in biblical times.

Posted by Robb 76 on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 4:30 PM (EST):

Come on kids. Before time God chose Mary to be the mother of His only begotten. He chose a mother not an incubator.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 4:26 PM (EST):

Mr Patton,
The prophecies you cited (Isaiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah)were not part of the Torah. So saying the Torah does not support Jesus as the Messiah is a rather confused position to take. In any case, if my other post gets past moderation it will explain those you cited.

Posted by Rodolfo F. Pineda on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 4:00 PM (EST):

God’s Commandment says to honor thy father and thy mother. The Most
Blessed Virgin Mary is the most perfect mother who is full of grace
and always, I mean, always lived the Commandments perfectly…that’s
why She is the Immaculate Conception, the Mother of God and the Spouse
of the Holy Spirit. The Most Holy Trinity always grant her anything She
asks because She never betrays God. The Miracle at the Wedding at Cana
proves it quite well. And, if one wishes modern proof, study the Message
of Fatima, especially what happened at the apparitions of June & July
13, 1917! The Miracle at Tepeyac is still another example. Yes, Mary
is the most perfect way to Jesus and Salvation! God bless all who work
for Our Lady of Fatima.

Posted by Mr. Patton on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 2:44 PM (EST):

Pat, do you wish for me to spoon feed you the answers? If I do, will that somehow allow you to recognize that the Messiah isn’t Jesus? The Torah does not support the views held by Christians.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 2:38 PM (EST):

These spam filters are way too sensitive… I tried modifying the post three different time.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 2:36 PM (EST):

Mr. Patton,
For your consideration on the supposed unfilled prophecies… Scripture tells us that the body of Christ is a temple (Jn 2:19-21) and He fulfills your noted prophecy through his resurrection by raising the temple of His body on the third day.
As for Isaiah, the Church is the new Jerusalem, and the 12 apostles signify the new tribes which now include all of the nations, both gentile and jew. Just as the word Catholic means universal, so Isaiah 43:5-6 was fulfilled for our Church because the good news is recieved by all nations and peoples. It was not foreshadowing a gathering of Jews back to Israel, but a gathering into the bosom of the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 2:31 PM (EST):

Mr. Patton said
[—-
Jesus failed to, build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28), gather all the Jews back to Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6), and spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel which will unite humanity as one (Zechariah 14:9).—-]

Scripture tells us that the body of Christ is a temple (Jn 2:19-21) and He fulfills the prophecy through his resurrection by raising the temple of His body on the third day.

As for Isaiah, the Church is the new Jerusalem, and the 12 apostles signify the new tribes which now include all of the nations, both gentile and jew. Just as the word Catholic means universal, so Isaiah 43:5-6 was fulfilled for our Church because the good news is recieved by all nations and peoples. It was not foreshadowing a gathering of Jews back to Israel, but a gathering into the bosom of the Church.

Posted by Pat on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 2:09 PM (EST):

Mr. Patton,
What does Numbers 23 have to do with the question I asked? There are over 400 prophecies in the Old Testament which point to the coming Messiah and to His life and death in which Jesus fulfilled.

Posted by Mr. Patton on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 1:45 PM (EST):

Pat, I would suggest reading Numbers 23…:)

Posted by Pat on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 12:58 PM (EST):

Mr Patton,
Where in Scripture does it say that “Messiah is to have and definitely no demi-god or supernatural abilities..”?

Posted by Loud on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 12:10 PM (EST):

I don’t know, but maybe you all will like something like this: http://www.teenink.com/poetry/all/article/439617/Our-Maiden-Mother/ I wrote it, please check it out. Probably would make Catholics smile, and non Catholics face-palm in frustration!

Posted by Loud on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 11:27 AM (EST):

In the pew, what is it that you are disagreeing with? Are you saying that we SHOULDN’T follow her advice and do whatever Jesus tells us to do? Or just that, although her advice is good, it is a fluke? What about the NT writers? Mathhew and John only knew Jesus for about three-four years, Mary knew Him His whole life AND SHE WAS THERE WITH HIM FOR MOST OF THOSE FOUR YEARS, TOO. The other Gospel writers weren’t even apostles! And Peter and James, sure they had educations, but not beyond what was avalible for poor fishermen! Luke the Gospel Writer had and education…... as a doctor. Paul was the ONLY apostle who acutally had ‘credentials’ that would have sufficed for you, but he didn’t even know Jesus! Do his words, by the way, count? After all, he was only ever speaking to the Church in Corinth, or the Romans, or the Pilippines, or to Timothy. Definetly NOT to us. The only differance is that, as an apostle, he had “Teaching Authority” to back up his words, so that Timothy and co. could trust him and by extention we could too. Now, if you believe in teaching athority, then fine! But remember, he wasn’t one of the original twelve! He was an Apostle apponted BY the twelve (I can say twelve because Barnabas replaced Judas by this time) which means they CAN AND DID APPOINT SUCESSORS! So the current sucessors who have come directly from the Apostles in and unbroken line of laying-on-of-hands are telling you, with their authority(the only differance between them and Mary), that Mary is due these honors! I think her credentials are pretty clear, by the way: Angels are always mighty, they have always before come with authority. The person they addressed would always drop to their knees or bow, and before this they never naysayed them. But with her, Gabriel addresses her with “Hail” and “Full of Grace”! AND where others had to take what he said or leave it, she was allowed to ask a question(Old Zach got struck dumb for that, because even though he was a promonient scholar [authority!] he was lower than the angel)! Whats more, whenever something happened she always “pondered it in her heart”, she thought about and meditated on what Jesus was long before the apostles could! Elizabeth who was, at the time, FILLED WITH the Holy Spirit cried out “Blessed are you among women!(the Holy Spirit lied, apparently)” and mary replied that “All generations would call me [Mary] Blessed”! And again, in the Wedding at Canna, Jesus told her that it was NOT His time to begin His ministry, but He did what she asked anyway and started early! COME ON! SHE JUMPSTARTED THE END OF SALVATION HISTORY! Honestly, those are some rock solid credentials.
Now one last thing. Jesus was God, but he was what we like to call ‘True God and True Man’. He assumed upon himself the role of the Son, which is why he prayed to the Father! He took on the role of a human and followed it to the letter. He obeyed His father and mother when they told Him as a twelve year old He had to come home from the temple. He respected his mother’s wishes at the Wedding at Canna. He payed taxes, he worked as a carpenter, he wouldn’t use his power to satisfy his hunger in the desert, he followed God’s commands till even to death though his human side cringed at the idea, he observed the Jewish traditions, he basically lived as a mere human unless their was need (someone else’s) or if God commanded otherwise. And he also obeyed the command to honor his father and mother. He did that, and he gave them both as much honor as he could muster(as God, that was a lot of honor)! The thing is, when God honors someone, it is our duty to honor them too, as imitators of Christ.

Posted by ellen on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 9:38 AM (EST):

I have great sympathy for non-Catholics who cannot understand the Church’s veneration of the Blessed Mother. It has been my experience that many (if not most) have been raised hearing quite negative things about the Holy Mother and it is hard for them to overcome that. However, for Catholics who have problems accepting what they think is “over the top” love and trust in the mediation of the Mother of God, I suggest they may want to read a book by Fr. H.Manteau-Bonamy, OP about the teachings of St. Maximilian Kolbe on the Immaculate Conception and The Holy Spirit. Fr. Manteau-Bonamy was a peritus at the Second Vatican Council, so he can hardly be considered old-fashioned. I am trying to do the consecration according to St. Louis de Montfort and the afore-mentioned book is part of my Lenten reading. I am finding it very inspiring. Sometimes, it seems to me that we ordinary Catholics have gone backwards in our understanding of the Blessed Virgin’s role in our salvation. We hear too often that she was “just like us” without even having the common sense to think of what it must have been like not to have been contaminated with Original Sin - imagine (for a start) what it must have been like not to have a darkened intellect, to have complete self-control, to be “full of grace”, etc. No wonder she said that He Who is Mighty has done great things to her.

Posted by Mr. Patton on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 8:53 AM (EST):

Pat, the only fact about Jesus that is substantiated throughout the New Testament is that Jesus is a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4) One of my favorite “facts” about Jesus is this whole virgin birth concept from the mistranslation of the Hebrew word alma. It does give it that whole first century pagan flavor, yet it contradicts then entire House of David requirement that the Messiah is to have and definitely no demi-god or supernatural abilities that is ascribed to Jesus.

Posted by Pat on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 3:22 AM (EST):

Marie Key,
Why don’t the writers of the NT make these connections with OT with Mary like RCC does? You would think that those who knew her best would have made these connections.
As for testing Mary, I ask again why the NT does not exhort us to do so?

Posted by Craig Roberts on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 2:37 AM (EST):

Dear Mary,

Thank you so much for answering my add on Craig’s List asking for spiritual help. Although I appreciate that you are the Mother of God and the Queen of All Saints, I would still be more comfortable if you had an advanced degree from a reputable institution. Have you ever even taught any classes? I’m sorry but I just would prefer to rely on someone that has some credentials and/or real world experience. After all we are talking about my spiritual well being here! Thanks anyway, and say ‘hi’ to your son for me.

Posted by Irenaeus of New York on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 2:18 AM (EST):

Mr. Patton said
[—-
Jesus failed to, build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28), gather all the Jews back to Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6), and spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel which will unite humanity as one (Zechariah 14:9).—-]

Scripture tells us that the body of Christ is a temple (Jn 2:19-21) and He fulfills the prophecy through his resurrection on the third day.

As for Isaiah, the Church is the new Jerusalem, and the 12 apostles signify the new tribes which now include all of the nations, both gentile and jew. Just as the word Catholic means universal, so Isaiah 43:5-6 was fulfilled for our Church because the good news is recieved by all nations and peoples. It was not foreshadowing a gathering of Jews back to Israel, but a gathering into the bosom of the Church.

Posted by Pat on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 2:15 AM (EST):

Mr Patton,
I checked those passages and they have nothing to do with Jesus not being the messiah. The fact is that a messiah was predicted in the OT and was fulfilled by Jesus.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 1:03 AM (EST):

I never said Mary was God. But who could argue with the advice, “Do whatever he (Jesus) tells you?”

Credentials? Really? What “pew” are you sitting in?

Posted by In the pew on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 12:56 AM (EST):

@Craig Roberts: You wrote: “All of Mary’s teaching on salvation can be summed up in one verse: His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” John 2:5. What is this, Craig,—“Feel Lance” Gospel according to Craig Roberts? You know the time, place and cast of characters in this passage. Mary was addressing and speaking directly to the Cana wedding servants alone —not to mankind. Why do you invent new theology that the servants should now be interpreted as “all of mankind.” Your thinking is dangerous. Mary is not God, was not a Rabbi and had no credentials to teach the Jewish people anything about salvation.

Posted by ED on Sunday, Mar, 11, 2012 12:36 AM (EST):

http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/totusjp2mont.HTM

Posted by Craig Roberts on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 11:24 PM (EST):

Whoa! Daylight savings time just sent my last post back to the future.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 11:22 PM (EST):

Congratulations Bob. Come back when you’re not ashamed.

Posted by Robert on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 11:15 PM (EST):

Here’s how I see it and I’m just simple I guess. I’m in RCIA as well. But I figure if it’s not
Against God but rather it brings more glory to God, then continue. And who better glorified God then
Our Mother. Don’t drive yourself crazy with what’s right or wrong, but
See the fruits the devotion to our mother has brooches forth. It’s our nature
To always find what’s wrong in things lol. Stop giving in, it’s good and has been good
So let the good be shared. What would it hurt to say it’s necessary for salvation,
Perhaps it may make some people nervouse or angry, but it’s a seed that must be planted
In order to get closer to Christ. Un easy to some at first but if it’s necessary for salvation
Then Our Father won’t let that seed go Un harvested. The truth is painful at times, but
It’s worth understanding that pain. Let the true devotion speak for itself through it fruits
And then your questions will be answered. It’s always the great truths of the holy spirit that seem
To shake people into questioning and debates and doubts. Why? Because it’s divine it’s Not of this world
It separates soul from spirit, bone from marrow. To this day Christians still
Have a hard time excepting what Jesus says doubting and debating over it. So shouldn’t it be expected even more
For the Saints as well. There saints for a reason don’t for get there love for Christ is just the same if not more
Than ours. Praise God

Posted by Maria Key on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 11:02 PM (EST):

Pat,
I’ll address one bit of Old Testament that relates to Mary. Among the Kings of Israel, it was the King’s mother, not his wife, who was Queen. Jesus is the eternal King of the House of David, so Mary, his mother, is the Eternal Queen.

There is much that many people here have said about Mary, and their love for her. If you want, you can test her. We should not put God to the test, but she’s not God. She doesn’t mind being tested. Ask her to show you who she is.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 9:32 PM (EST):

I don’t know. Mary always points to Jesus. I really don’t think anybody is going to miss out on heaven because they were too loving and devoted to Mary.

All of Mary’s teaching on salvation can be summed up in one verse: His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” John 2:5

So if you don’t follow Jesus, you’re not really listening to Mary anyway.

Posted by Mr. Patton on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 8:55 PM (EST):

Pat, You are correct in the claim that no one is the Messiah. As far as the question you asked me, that is the cart before the horse type of question. Jesus failed to, build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28), gather all the Jews back to Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6), and spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel which will unite humanity as one (Zechariah 14:9).

Posted by Pat on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 8:41 PM (EST):

Craig,
The RCC makes claims about her that go far beyond what the NT tells us. This is the problem with what Louis de Montfort wrote. Its speculations that misleads people.
Do you think that if Mary had refused the request of the angel that Jesus would not have come?

Posted by Craig Roberts on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 8:34 PM (EST):

@Pat
The Church does not teach that Mary was divine or that she should be worshipped. Only that she should be loved and honored for what she has done for Jesus and for all mankind. Get it? “Only” I don’t know about you but my heart is incapable giving her all the honor she deserves. And think how much more I owe to her son? It’s no wonder sometimes why Catholics are despised for their impossible doctrines.

If you don’t think she should be crowned Queen of Heaven, so be it. But we can’t prevent it. And if we’re lucky enough to get an invite to the ceremony after the end of time, let’s go!

Posted by Pat on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 7:57 PM (EST):

Craig,
No problem with Mary being blessed above all women. Truly she was in being the one through whom Christ came into the world and raising Him. That is as far as we should go. To give Mary all the titles and powers that the RCC does, goes far beyond what the Lord Jesus and His apostles taught.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 7:47 PM (EST):

Bwaahaa!! Thanks Loud. That’s too too true. Luther must be spinning in his grave. But I think it was Pat that was saying that Mary cannot be found outside of the New Testament. I think Mary can be found in all sorts of places. I would have to differ to Mark Shea’s superior knowledge regarding Mary in the Old Testament. (Ark of the Covenant perhaps?)

But really how much more do we need than the angel Gabriel in Luke 1:28? If an arch-angel sent from God says that someone is “highly favored” and “blessed among women” who are we to quibble?

Posted by Craig Roberts on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 7:10 PM (EST):

@Pat
That’s a good point. It’s difficult to distill the Truth without help, even when we try to consult the Holy Spirit directly through prayer. That’s why Jesus established the Church. Even with the Church we often read things by popes or saints that make us think, “Fut the what? How can that be? And why can’t it be said in a way that I can understand right here, right now?” The reason why is that theology is like any other subject in that if you don’t learn the basics you won’t be able to understand the more advanced lessons.

People don’t just march into a calculus class without first learning arithmetic, algebra, and trigonometry. Yet people think they can tell the pope that he’s wrong if they’ve been to bible camp.

Theology is not like other subject in that it also requires faith. Ultimately, it’s the gift of faith that allows our reason to comprehend things that are beyond our natural intelligence. But our faith isn’t as strong as we would like it to be. And because it is an unmerited gift from God, we can’t just exercise it into shape. That’s why we must humbly look to others whose faith is stronger. If we persist, we may ‘see’ what they are trying to teach us. But if we fail to understand it is not because they are wrong, it’s that we are still weak. And so we go back to the basics and start again.

Scholars and theologians may argue about the implications of this but a child could tell you that God, and Jesus, want us to honor Mary with all the love our poor, poor hearts can muster.

Posted by Pat on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 7:02 PM (EST):

Mr Patton,
How can Judaism is still be a valid religious institution if the temple sacrifices have been done away with and there is no longer a temple to do sacrifices?
BTW- if Jesus is not the Messiah, then no one can be.

Posted by Loud on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 6:55 PM (EST):

Craig, that isn’t the only place we hear of Mary. I do admit that the rest comes from tradition, from writers who lived in the place the apostle John and Mary( who lived with John because of Jesus’ command from the cross) spent a lot of time. They knew Mary and heard Mary’s story FROM HER. But I know, I know, it would be hard for someone to swallow them as anything but early Christian fables unless they had faith in the Church’s ability to preserve the faith. (and if they had that, they would be Catholic!) But even if you discount these thing as fables, don’t say we don’t have any other sources. Everybody knows her parents’ names were Joachim and Anne, so even the Protestants trust Sacred Tradition to some small extent. As for heresy, by your definition all modern day Calvinist, Lutherans, and people of the current versions of the early Protestant church’s are heretics. They profess to be part of those churches, but all the reformers accepted Mary as immaculate and called suggestions to the contrary un-biblical. I never thought I’d think of those heritics and say thankyou, but thankyou, Luther!

Posted by Pat on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 6:15 PM (EST):

Craig,
I was making the point of how we know what is true. The Mormon tells me to pray about the book of Mormon to see if it is true. Should we not believe only what the Lord Jesus and His apostles taught?

Posted by Mr. Patton on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 6:15 PM (EST):

LOL…..:) Very humorous, Craig.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 5:53 PM (EST):

@Mr. Patton
Dunno. Suffering servant? Isaiah 53? Luckily, Jesus didn’t have to interview with a bunch of biblical scholars for the job of Messiah. Yeah, it’s a scandal that God would apoint His son to the job without consulting us. Kind of smacks of nepotism.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 5:30 PM (EST):

@Pat
If you reject Mormonism, why embrace Lutheranism, Calvanism, Pentacostlism, non-demominationalism, or any of the other -ism off shoots of the One Holy and Apostolic Church?

The first comment, from “trespinos”, illustrates nicely the utter chaos in which we find ourselves these days.
I am quite certain that our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI would be quite ashamed to have someone say that his writing are of greater value than those of St. Louis-Marie ... in any case, Bl Pope John Paul II (who, as much as anyone, understood modern man and the modern world) unhesitatingly recommended the writings of de Montfort.
When will we learn to approach the writings of the saints with a little humility?

Posted by Mr. Patton on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 4:49 PM (EST):

Few understand what I am getting at Craig…:D Until you answer my one simple question about the requirements of Jesus to be the Messiah according to the Old Testament, there will be no understanding. Of course that answer will also reveal why Judaism is still a valid religious institution.

Posted by Pat on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 4:29 PM (EST):

Craig,
thanks for your comment. The only information we know about Mary is found only in the New Testament. What you are asking me to do is the same kind of thing what the Mormon ask me to do to determine if Mormonism is true.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 4:25 PM (EST):

Not sure what you’re getting at Mr. Patton, but ‘heresy’ has a clear and unambiguous definition. If you claim to be a member of a church (any church) and willfully and persistently reject an important part of it’s teaching, you are guilty of heresy. If you’re not Catholic you cannot be a heretic in regards to the Church’s teachings.

Posted by Mr. Patton on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 3:52 PM (EST):

Heresy? What are the requirements for Jesus to be the Messiah according to the Old Testament? Christianity is a derivative of Judaism and there was bound to be issues, especially keeping scripture from Judaism and making such works towards Christianity.

Posted by David on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 3:25 PM (EST):

l struggled with this at first. than I prayed the rosary and trusted.my advice is to pray a rosary everyday and ask the virgin mary to help you understand.if your honest with yourself you will be surprise.I only went to the 9th grade.I have been making the consecration the last
3 years and I have known Jesus better than I ever have.my mother has introduced me to him in a very special way.

Posted by Truth Seeker on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 2:36 PM (EST):

Reader, there is a reason why you doubt. There are a lot of non-biblical human assumptions and extrapolation done to come to these conclusions about Mary that are not in the Bible.
Examples of what the Bible says:
Matthew 12:48
He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”
Matthew 12:47-49 (in Context) Matthew 12 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 12:50
For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Matthew 12:49-50 (in Context) Matthew 12 (Whole Chapter)
Mark 3:35
Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”
Mark 3:34-35 (in Context) Mark 3

God does not need man to do anything for him. He did chose Mary and she was blessed because of it but as is shown in scripture in this one of many examples; Luke 19:37 the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen:

38 “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!”

“Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!”

39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples!”

Any distraction from Jesus as our Lord and Savior, is just that a distraction.
There is of course more I could say but I think the Bible speaks for itself.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 1:48 PM (EST):

@Pat
Thanks for the polite response to my rude retort. It’s hard to respond to a heresy if you don’t know which denomination it comes from. Rather than try to defend the Mother of God with theological arguments, I’ll ask you to try an experiment. Prayerfully ask Jesus, “Lord, what was the woman who gave birth to you, nurtured you, loved you (as only a mother can) from when you were a baby all the way to your cross and resurection like?”

Posted by Magistra Bona on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 1:27 PM (EST):

Would it hurt to consider the Mary-thing in the light of Aristotle’s St. Thomas Aquinas-approved four causes? First Cause: God, the all-powerful, not needing any help, not even Mary’s, He Who causes everything. Final Cause: Salvation of the world and humanity, Redemption and Everlasting Beatitude, all the goodies of God. Efficient Cause: (There’s a whole chain of these, but…) Mary’s “Fiat”, which made our salvation a freely-chosen thing, and was the crowing glory of a long chain of subordinate efficient causes. And, Material Cause: Mary’s Womb. As St. Thomas avers, Matter is the organizing principle of Reality. It took a woman. Period. Mary is groovy. She’s just not God. Many a Catholic uses Mary as a Mommy God to self-medicate and comfort him or herself. Cultures that had always worshipped the feminine, use Mary as a lateral move to keep worshipping fertility and childbirth. Same old, same old. But, Christ comes with something different, better, and new. Mary is the last person who would ask us to put a creature ahead of the Creator. May we all make it to heaven where she’ll explain it all. Mary rocks!!

Posted by Pat on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 1:23 PM (EST):

Craig,
Jesus did not have an immaculate mother. She was just like the rest of us.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 1:21 PM (EST):

The confusion arising from the variety of devotions between Catholics of good will is dispelled by Father Jordan Aumann in his book Spiritual Theology:

“When, therefore, saintly Christians follow Christ in a way that appeals to other persons, or when they formulate a spiritual doctrine that can lead souls to greater perfection, they frequently attract followers who adopt the same pattern of Christian living. In time the lifestyle or the doctrine is expressed in a corporate manner by the followers, and this social manifestation emerges as a distinct school of spirituality, e.g., Benedictine spirituality, Franciscan spirituality, Teresian spirituality, or Salesian spirituality. Yet schools of spirituality are not restricted exclusively to individual persons as founders or leaders; they may also be classified according to national temperaments and cultures (French spirituality as distinct from Spanish spirituality), a particular period in history (post-Reformation spirituality and Vatican II spirituality), or the doctrinal basis and content (Eucharistic spirituality and Marian spirituality).

The schools of spirituality are thus an indication of the diversity of the ways of the Spirit, a proof of the Church’s respect for personal freedom in following the impulses of the Spirit, and a corporate witness to the variety of ways in which the mystery of Christ is imaged in the Mystical Body of the Church. Therefore one’s attitude toward schools of spirituality should be one of openness and tolerance, respecting the diversity of needs and charisms and approving whatever the Church approves.”

(Hat tip to Jeff Miller (http://splendoroftruth.com/curtjester) for providing the book link on Jennifer Fulwiler’s blog post “Catholic Bloggers Share Their Top Book Recommendations”)

Posted by Craig Roberts on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 1:06 PM (EST):

@Pat
Spoken like a true atheist. If you call yourself Christian, which Christ is it that does not have an immaculate mother? At least atheist trolls are clear about what (and who) they are rejecting.

Posted by Pat on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 12:55 PM (EST):

I feel sorry for catholics who believe this stuff. Its a tragedy.

Posted by Flamen on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 11:42 AM (EST):

Re: the power of Mary and the Rosary. A short silly story.
A newly ordained priest was giving one of his first sermons and said that Mary could pull a soul out of Hell by the rosaries that had been said during their lifetime. The old pastor then intervened to say that that was not quite true. Only those could be saved by Mary who had been unjustly condemned to Hell.

Many people were raised by a male authority figure who was fundamentally good-hearted and decent, but who may have been at times a bit distant toward a small child, who could lack patience and gentleness toward a youngster who wanted to please him, but being yet so small and weak, couldn’t quite manage it. Sometimes these men - a father, a grandfather, an uncle - although caring for the youngster, might behave in a way that might be hasty, commanding, gruff, or even worse. Sometimes the tempre would flare - there would be scenes with yelling and denunciations. These youngsters were devastated - even traumatized - depending on how bad the reaction was. An angry adult male can be a scary thing to a little kid.
But Mama? Mama wasn’t as angry. Mama understood. Mama was kind and patient and encouraging, no matter what. And Mama would quietly go and speak with Papa, and say to him, “I know you want what is best for the child, but he (or she) tried his hardest, and failed. He’ll do better next time. Can’t you be a little more patient? For my sake?” And naturally, Papa says, “oh, all right, then. I’ll try!” And reconciliation takes place, through the intercession of the woman. People didn’t grow up in terror of the father or father-figure in their lives won’t understand, but people who did will very much appreciate being able to run to Mary first when they are hurt, in trouble, when they have failed.
Sign me, Mary’s Little Girl

Posted by Blake Helgoth on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 10:11 AM (EST):

In the pew,
We do know God’s free choices through His revelation to us, especially in Sacred Scripture. The Wedding Feast at Cana pericope is all about the over abundance of grace (wine) that comes through the marriage of Christ and humanity at the request of his mother.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Saturday, Mar, 10, 2012 12:28 AM (EST):

“Maria Key”....heh heh…nice.

Posted by Maria Key on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 11:43 PM (EST):

Dear Reader,
I think the language and style of de Montfort is a stumbling block for our modern ears, but the essence is all gold. Via Maria is the short cut to heaven.

She is our mother, really and truly. Our perfect mother. Relax, let her pick you up and place you in the Father’s arms.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 11:14 PM (EST):

Good job Mark. Naturally anybody who seeks to enter the heavenly kingdom should seek the blessing of the Queen of All Saints.

Posted by Magistra Bona on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 10:22 PM (EST):

Hi. Would it hurt to consider the Mary-thing in the light of Aristotle’s St. Thomas Aquinas-approved four causes? First Cause: God, the all-powerful, not needing any help, not even Mary’s, He Who causes everything. Final Cause: Salvation of the world and humanity, Redemption and Everlasting Beatitude, all the goodies of God. Efficient Cause: (There’s a whole chain of these, but…) Mary’s “Fiat”, which made our salvation a freely-chosen thing, and was the crowing glory of a long chain of subordinate efficient causes. And, Material Cause: Mary’s Womb. As St. Thomas avers, Matter is the organizing principle of Reality. It took a woman. Period. Mary is groovy. She’s just not God. Many a Catholic uses Mary as a Mommy God to self-medicate and comfort him or herself. Cultures that had always worshipped the feminine, use Mary as a lateral move to keep worshipping fertility and childbirth. Same old, same old. But, Christ comes with something different, better, and new. Mary is the last person who would ask us to put a creature ahead of the Creator. May we all make it to heaven where she’ll explain it all. Mary rocks!!

Posted by Loud on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 10:03 PM (EST):

Devotion to Mary is to salvation as a ferrari is to the grocery store two miles down the road. You don’t NEED to practice a special devotion to Mary to go to Heaven. But honestly, not even a health nut wants to walk in the middle of a freezing cold and blistery bizzard. You can, but why would you? I would take the sports car, ESPECIALLY since tends to make the cute boy who works the register(Guess who this is in this analogy?) flash his heavenly smile.

Posted by Mr. Patton on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 8:39 PM (EST):

“Oops, that was not meant to posted under the name Reggie Johnson. Sorry about the confusion.” - Marilyn

That is an honest hired crier if I ever read one…:)

Posted by In the pew on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 8:28 PM (EST):

@Blake: You wrote “She (Mary) is the spouse of the Holy Spirit and by His free choice, the Holy Spirit only works through her…” That’s rather restrictive thinking on your part. How nice that you know the extent of what “His” free choice is. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit had to work through Mary in order to reach the apostles. It must be impossible for Him to reach you directly.

Posted by Lorraine on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 7:49 PM (EST):

Please, with an open heart, read “33 Days to Morning Glory” by Fr. Michael Gaitley, MIC. It quickly cleared up my concerns and misunderstanding. I’m now looking forward to Consecration on March 25….the Feast of the Annunciation…...AMDG!

Posted by R.C. on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 6:02 PM (EST):

I totally sympathize and commiserate with this reader.

My wife remains Protestant largely for four reasons:

(1.) The fact that the Mass seems dead, rote, and unedifying to her;
(2.) Her inability to find either a sure-fire natural law or scriptural prohibition on non-abortifacient contraception when used for spacing of births;
(3.) Her concern for our children, given the vast number of fallen-away Catholics that we’ve met, that a childhood in a Catholic church is far less likely to produce an adult Christian than a childhood in an evangelical church; and,
(4.) The Big One: The Mary Mary Mary Mary And Did I Mention Mary (Our Lady Of Apparently Absolutely Everything) devotional culture of Roman Rite Catholicism.

Item (2.) used to be more of a problem before I started being faithful to the Church’s teachings; that made it more of a theoretical issue. Items (1.) and (3.) she could get over if the homily and music and Sunday School classes were more excellently done.

But Item (4.) feels to her (and still sometimes to me) just like C.S.Lewis said in the introduction to Mere Christianity: Like the line of demarcation between Creator and creature has broken down, like polytheism has risen again.

I say, it feels that way. I know better with my mind. But some Catholics sure do seem to go out of their way to make it difficult to keep the mind and the gut synchronized on this issue.

I wonder if that’s a little less pronounced, a little less exaggerated, a little less flowery and effusive in its expression, in the Eastern Rite parishes, or perhaps in the Anglican Use?

It would be nice if it were.

Posted by JohnY on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 5:02 PM (EST):

@in the pew: Proper respect for Mary will always include the fact that she freely and willingly said yes to God. She was willing to play her part in our redemption. Her part is small, a single atom compared to the universe, but none the less, crucial to our redemption. As DeMontfort said, properly understood, he is proposing; Consecrating ourselves to Jesus through Mary. Properly understood she brings us to Christ who is our Redeemer, so there is no conflict with 1 Timothy 2:5. Who better to help us come to know and love Christ but his mother.

Posted by JohnY on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 5:02 PM (EST):

Thank you for your questions, it has reminded me of just how important Our Blessed Mother has been to my spiritual growth through the years. If you check the front of the book you will find assurances about what you read in the form of the Imprimi Potest, Nihil Obstat, and the Imprimatur by Cardinal Spellman. I encourage you to take your time with this. Put your book away somewhere you can find it later and wait for the Holy Spirit to guide you back to it, for as it says in the bible; test every spirit.
When Frank Duff, first encountered DeMontfort’s book, he too questioned it. Later, when the time was right, he reread it and it made sense. He went on to found the Legion of Mary, one of the largest Lay Catholic Organizations.
Mary did a good job of raising and forming Jesus, she will do the same for us. A dear friend of mine once explained our Blessed Mothers intercession this way: A small boy was playing in an orchard when he discovered that some of the apples had fallen to the ground. He gathered up 10 of them and thought they would make a splendid gift for the King. As he was going into the castle, the king’s mother asked him where he was going. As he explained, she noticed that the apples were bruised and one had a worm in it. She suggested that they use the apples to make a pie for the king. This way she could cut out the bad parts and make the apples acceptable to the king. By the time she was through, she had discarded about half of each apple leaving about 5 apples, which were just enough to make a delicious pie for the king. (I hope the math helped)

Posted by Blake Helgoth on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 4:59 PM (EST):

Just a point of clarification here. Honoring Mary and her proper role as Our Mother in the Order of grace, as Vatican II put it, is not optional. It would be contraty to justice to neglect it. It is not just a nice thing for some people who may be helped by the devotion. She is our Mother and we must honor her. Devotion to other saints are indeed optional, but not a devotion and filial love for our Mother. She is the spouse of the Holy Spirit and by His free choice, the Holy Spirit only works through her (thus the title, Mother in the Order of Grace. Oh, and by the way, the co-redemptrix is part of catholic doctrine. It has just not been raised to the level of Dogam by formal definition.

Posted by In the pew on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 4:30 PM (EST):

@TG: Here is the struggle for non Catholics and many Catholics alike. Proper respect for Mary will always be due her but any idea of mediator or Co-Redeemer status is way over the top and conflicts with 1 Timothy 2:5 “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” In praying to Mary, the church has offered “opinion” but not necessarily doctrinal teaching regarding many things. The existence of conflicting information which is never rightly explained leads to confusion.

Posted by Bob Rowland on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 4:23 PM (EST):

I would suggest that those who feel uncomfortable with the true status of the Mother of God should read The Mystical City of God by Venerable Mother Mary of Agreda. It is not an easy read, but once I started reading this 2700-page four-volume document, I could not put it down for long. I don’t have a problem with private revelation that has numerous Approbations. Almighty God is quoted as saying He intends for it not to be mere speculation but reliable truth. During the Coronation of Mary, he said: We wish that nothing be conceded to man that does not pass through her hands. Everything I direct to God goes through those same hands. I am consecrated to Montfort’s true devotion. You don’t have to be, but if you want to reject the greatest advocate you could ever have with God be my guest and ignore His Blessed Mother.

Posted by michele on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 4:22 PM (EST):

Very good questions (and very respectfully asked, I might add) and great answers from Mark - and terrific comments too! But to this reader, I would say only one thing: GO ASK HER! I’m a big fan of the rosary myself (as one of the best way to study, meditate and grasp the whole economy of salvation) but, even more than prayers, I would recommend that you turn to her directly, her, the Mother of God, the crowning flower of the Jewish race, the very first Christian because she adhered so completely to the will of God, turn to her and ask her your questions. Do it daily for a week, for a month, and wait and see…

Posted by Donna Ruth on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 3:33 PM (EST):

Oh, I can sympathize with the reader. For this Lent I decided to renew my 34-Day St. Louis de Montfort Total Consecration to Jesus through Mary. I struggled the first time I did it - and I do now. As I reread True Devotion to Mary (the wonderful Eddie Doherty adaptation), I find little rays of sunlight that help me to better understand this devotion:

“Here is the motive that shows us how essentially just it is, and how profitable, for a Christian to consecrate himself wholly to Mary that he may be the more perfectly consecrated to Christ:

“Our Master deemed it good to enclose Himself in the womb of Mary, as a captive, as a living slave; and to be subjected and obedient to her for thirty years of His life. Our human mind staggers when we seriously consider this. Incarnate Wisdom did not will to give Himself directly to men, although He might have done so. He willed to give Himself to men through Mary. He did not will to be born a perfect man, independent of all others. He willed to be an infant, dependent for everything on His Mother’s care.

“Infinite Wisdom, burning with desire to glorify His Father and save the human race, found no better or quicker way of doing so than by submitting Himself completely to His Mother, not only for the first few years of His life - as other children do - but for thirty years!”

Mary is still Jesus’ mother in Heaven: the Queen Mother, the gebirah, as Dr. Scott Hahn so skillfully explained the historical biblical role of the mother of a king: “But look at the beginning of the institution of the gebirah. It’s something that continues. When the Queen Mother walks in, the king, because he is her son, pays filial homage to her and establishes her at his right hand, upon a throne as Queen Mother.” http://www.catholic-pages.com/bvm/hahn.asp

What I do know is that the first consecration made many years ago brought abundant, rich blessings - not that I am seeking them again. I am also aware this idea of a renewal was not from me, but a prompting of the Holy Spirit. There are some things that we just do on faith, trusting in God they are good for our souls - especially those of us who are a little too self-reliant. Of that I am most guilty.

Posted by Della on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 3:22 PM (EST):

The thing with this devotional, and all like it, is they are not meant to be merely read but practiced. The Saint takes the devotee through a system towards consecration, explaining as one goes through it what it means and why it is important. It’s more a manual than a book to be read—like a manual on how to fix an engine in a car or how to fly a plane. Only those interested in learning really are disposed to read it. In other words, it’s meat not milk and so should not be attempted by those who are spiritually unready or just exploring Catholicism (unless they have already have an affinity for such deeper matters). The same could be said for St. Frances de Sales “Introduction to the Devout Life”, the “Spiritual Exercises” of St. Ignatius Loyola, or “Interior Castles” by St. Teresa of Avila.

Posted by TG on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 1:04 PM (EST):

Being a hispanic Catholic, I was raised with a lot of devotion to our Lady. I’ve never been able to figure out why non-Catholics have such an issue with her. Jesus did his first miracle when she asked him to. He really didn’t want to but he did. I figure that’s what happens in my life, he doesn’t think I deserve something but she intercedes for me and I get it. I’m currently reading the book mentioned. Good job on your comments, Mark.

Posted by Allan on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 12:38 PM (EST):

There is no issue with anyone that Mary was the Mother of God. That, in my opinion is all that it needed to know about Mary. A mother knows their child more than anyone else. Without Mary, there would be no Jesus. The Incarnation would never have happened. Things would be the same as they were prior to Jesus’s birth. God is in control; and He choose Mary to be the mother of His Son. We need Mary to be included in our salvation. God said so!

Posted by Michael on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 12:19 PM (EST):

Mr. Shea and “A reader”:

First off, let me say to Mr. Shea a profound and heartfelt thanks for your blog and your publications. On my “Journey Home” I read with rapt delight your apologetic work on the Eucharist and the Real Presence and various evangelical and fundamentalists objections and Catholic answers. I also have read your Marian trilogy, as “A reader did, and found Mary to be something of a stumbling block as well, in my journey from first a fundamentalist Protestant background, through radical and then magisterial evangelicalism back home to the Catholic Church. To “A reader” I say thank you for your questions for they articulated much better than I could to myself some of the sticking points I had with Marian doctrine and dogmas.

I wanted to make a few points that I found ultimately helpful for me in positioning Mary and Marian teachings into the “big picture”, understanding her role, and the implications this has in our Christian lives. The first is the radical transcendence of God and His sovereignty over us by virtue first of having been created by the Father, secondly redeemed with the Son, and finally sanctified or made holy in the Holy Spirit. God is Isness. Everything that is (in the created sense, both immaterial and material), is by virtue of participating in His Isness. God doesn’t need us and yet we are. Secondly, what are we? Humanity or mankind is a body / soul composite. We are not a body or a soul. Human nature (“and man became a living soul”) is for lack of a better explanation an enfleshed spirit or, if you will, is alive by virtue of being a spiritually infused body. The last thing to keep in mind is that, because sin and death entered into the world by man (both male and female, i. e. Adam and Eve) only a man could set it right, and yet, yet, because the implications of the Fall affect all of humanity throughout time and space only an infinite, eternal man could set it right (speaking from a human point of view). In other words, only a God/man could set it right. Look at Genesis, a spiritual being deceives mankind by tempting the first man through the woman (Satan, Eve, Adam). In the Incarnation (the hypostatic union of the second person of the Trinity, namely Jesus; with a human nature which He receives from Mary), a spiritual being Gabriel brings glad tidings from God to the new Eve, Mary who conceives the new Adam. “Death through Eve, life through Mary” was the formula the early church fathers proclaimed. Joseph plays no physical part in Jesus’s conception. The human nature Jesus assumes comes completely through Mary’s yes to God’s offer through his envoy Gabriel. God from God, Light from Light (divinity) wed to, united to, maritally embraced through Mary. The mediation Jesus Christ effects must be human because Adam and Eve’s sin is human and therefore is mediated through the humanity he assumes, which is Mary’s humanity. His human nature is Mary’s human nature. She, subordinately, becomes a mediatrix, through which he effects our redemption on the cross. To Jesus (divinity) through Mary (humanity) or to Christ through the Church. The apostles would not have known Christ as God if he had not become incarnate physically. We know Christ, having ascended into heaven and now sitting at the right hand of the father, through his transfigured, mystical body, the Church. Finally, just as Christ assumed our humanity to restore all things in Himself, he sanctifies us, or makes us holy through the transfigured, resurrected human nature( through Mary) by imparting grace through it to all of mankind through all eternity through the Church, through the sacraments. Our Lady (the Church, the mystical body, Mary’s nature(human nature) restored to the its state of holiness prior to the fall, and now impassable, incapable any longer of falling into corruption (“It is finished”, ascended into and seated at the right hand of the Father, in heaven).

This theology helped me, I hope it is also helpful to “A reader” and your readers.

Posted by Michael on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 12:08 PM (EST):

Mr. Shea and “A reader”:

First off, let me say to Mr. Shea a profound and heartfelt thanks for your blog and your publications. On my “Journey Home” I read with rapt delight your apologetic work on the Eucharist and the Real Presence and various evangelical and fundamentalists objections and Catholic answers. And with “A Reader”, I also have read your Marian trilogy as I have found Mary to be something of a stumbling block as well, in my journey from first a fundamentalist Protestant background, through radical and then magisterial evangelicalism back home to the Catholic Church. To “A reader” I say thank you for your questions for they articulated much better than I could to myself some of the sticking points I had with Marian doctrine and dogmas.

I wanted to make a few points that I found ultimately helpful for me in positioning Mary and Marian teachings into the “big picture”, understanding her role, and the implications this has in our Christian lives. The first is the radical transcendence of God and His sovereignty over us by virtue first of having been created by the Father, secondly redeemed with the Son, and finally sanctified or made holy in the Holy Spirit. God is Isness. Everything that is (in the created sense, both immaterial and material), is by virtue of participating in His Isness. God doesn’t need us and yet we are. Well, what are we? Humanity or mankind is a body / soul composite. We are not a body or a soul, human nature (“and man became a living soul”) is for lack of a better explanation an enfleshed spirit or, if you will, is alive by virtue of being a spiritually infused body. The last thing to keep in mind is that, because sin and death entered into the world by man (both male and female, i. e. Adam and Eve) only a man could set it right, and yet, yet, because the implications of the Fall affect all of humanity throughout time and space only an infinite, eternal man could set it right (speaking from a human point of view). In other words, only a God/man could set it right. Look at Genesis, a spiritual being deceives mankind by tempting the first man through the woman (Satan, Eve, Adam). In the Incarnation (the hypostatic union of the second person of the Trinity, namely Jesus; with a human nature which He receives from Mary), a spiritual being Gabriel brings glad tidings from God to the new Eve, Mary who conceives the new Adam. “Death through Eve, life through Mary” was the formula the early church fathers proclaimed. Joseph plays no physical part in Jesus’s conception, the human nature Jesus assumes comes completely through Mary’s yes to God’s offer through his envoy Gabriel. God from God, Light from Light (divinity) wed to, united to, maritally embraced through Mary. The mediation Jesus Christ effects must be human because Adam and Eve’s sin is human and therefore is mediated through the humanity he assumes, which is Mary’s humanity. His human nature is Mary’s human nature. She, subordinately, becomes a mediatrix, through which he effects our redemption on the cross. To Jesus (divinity) through Mary (humanity) or to Christ through the Church. The apostles would not have known Christ as God if he had not become incarnate physically. We know Christ, having ascended into heaven and now sitting at the right hand of the father, through his transfigured, mystical body, the Church.

This helped me, I hope it is also helpful to “A reader” and your readers.

Posted by Barbara Levich on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 12:00 PM (EST):

I think Mary is not the “gatekeeper” but rather more like someone with influence who can help you meet the One you desire to see. Mary is necessessary if you want the journey to be easier. As a convert with a mere 6 weeks of instruction before joining the Church back in 1966, it has taken me a long time to understanding things which might have been easier with proper instruction. I am still not ready for de Montfort.

Posted by bob cratchit on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 11:53 AM (EST):

I love this post Mark. I’m a cradle Catholic/revert and I struggled with St. Louis DeMontforts book. I mean, I really love his devotion but basically follow a simple consecration. My grandfather always had a rosary in his hand when we would visit and my mother taught us a fervent devotion to Our Lady. I also had the benefit of being surrounded by a lot of other people with a quiet and childlike devotion to to the Blessed Mother and so that is also my approach. It also helps to remember St Gabriels rather formal address to the young Virgin and her cousin, St Elishevah’s prophetic greating. If an archangel had no fear in praising the young Virgin as Blessed amongst all women why should we

Posted by Lady Cygnus on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 11:36 AM (EST):

When I first started learning about my faith I also had a lot of difficulty with Marian devotions. Had someone tried to insist that I follow the True Devotion at that time I would have balked. Yet five years ago I did the consecration to Mary. I think it’s often hard for us to realize that everyone is different and that even we change.

The Church says a devotion to Mary is good, but doesn’t require it, therefore start small. There are other devotions to Mary that may be easier to start, like the rosary or the Angelus prayer. God wants us to be holy, so if it is in his plan for you to follow the True Devotion then he’ll give you the understanding and grace to make it happen. If not then he may have another path to holiness for you to follow.

Posted by Ann on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 10:24 AM (EST):

I tried posting this earlier. Not sure what happened to it. If it ends up posted twice, sorry.

I agree with the above comment and just want to add my thoughts. I hope they are helpful.

“just figuring out how to grow closer to Christ” No one was closer to Jesus than Mary so we should imitate her to grow closer to Him. The best way to imitate her is to develop a devotion to her. The Blessed Mother will always lead you to her Son. Always.

You might want to read what other saints and holy people have to say about Mary, their relationship to Mary. While these writings are not dogma, as long as they do not contradict Church teaching, they can be helpful as you “noodle” through the doctrines and your relationship with Mary. Take a look at the visions of Anne Catherin Emmerich’s Life of the Blessed Mother and The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ and Mary of Areda’s City of God. They are not doctrine, but they do not contradict the Church and they give a lot of possibilities for what might have been the events in the life of the Blessed Virgin and how these things came to be. If nothing else, these visions might help you stretch your understanding of the supernatural. God can do anything, but our knowledge and imaginations are so limited that I think it is very difficult for most of us to even come close to understanding what God can do.

I agree with the above poster that maybe you should put aside St. Louis de Montfort’s writings for now. I have found that sometimes I am not ready for a spiritual work even though I feel drawn to it. At a later time, it will have an impact but not at that time.

I have heard that some converts pray the rosary long before they understand the Blessed Mother and that that has brought them many graces. How good God is that He will give us gifts even when we don’t believe as we should.

Don’t give up on building a relationship with the Blessed Mother. She will guide you and take care of you if you just give her a little bit of a chance to do so.

God bless

Posted by Dave on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 10:19 AM (EST):

A positive devotion to Mary is not strictly necessary for salvation. However, if you do cultivate a devotion to the Blessed Mother, I believe you’ll find yourself advancing more quickly in the path of holiness.

One interesting point of St. Louis De Montfort is that, according to him, just as Jesus was incarnated by Mary and the Holy Spirit, God wishes to form Jesus in us by Mary and the Holy Spirit.

Part of the problem is that we are not used to the devotional language St. Louis is using.

Posted by That Hat Lady on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 10:08 AM (EST):

Let the convert know he isn’t alone in his agony. The majority of RCIA classes are derelect in their duty to teach the one true faith, as are the catechism classes in Catholic schools. My post-Vatican II parish taught me nothing but watered-down social theology. Even today, an RCIA program in my local parish is run by a DRE that is prochoice. You must learn the faith from a reputable source. Start with the Baltimore catechism first. As your faith becomes stronger, you can accept and understand the Monfort book, which is like training for the marines. My family is working on completing the Monfort consecration during Lent.

Posted by Marilyn on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 9:52 AM (EST):

Oops, that was not meant to posted under the name Reggie Johnson. Sorry about the confusion.

Posted by Reggie Johnson on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 9:48 AM (EST):

I also struggled with this, and I was happy to hear that even St. Louis de Montfort admitted that his way of devotion to Mary was not for everyone. Once when some de Montfort enthusiasts were putting pressure on me, someone brought the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe to our Church, and as they processed through the aisle, I felt that she was telling me that my relationship with her was fine and I shouldn’t worry about it or try to copy anyone else.

Posted by Pete on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 9:34 AM (EST):

If St. Louis de Montfort’s particular presentation of devotion to the Blessed Mother is a stumbling block as another reader said, I’d recommend consulting other presentations.

“just figuring out how to grow closer to Christ” No one was closer to Jesus than Mary so we should imitate her to grow closer to Him. The best way to imitate her is to develop a devotion to her. The Blessed Mother will always lead you to her Son. Always.

You might want to read what other saints and holy people have to say about Mary, their relationship to Mary. While these writings are not dogma, as long as they do not contradict Church teaching, they can be helpful as you “noodle” through the doctrines and your relationship with Mary. Take a look at the visions of Anne Catherin Emmerich’s Life of the Blessed Mother and The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ and Mary of Areda’s City of God. They are not doctrine, but they do not contradict the Church and they give a lot of possibilities for what might have been the events in the life of the Blessed Virgin and how these things came to be. If nothing else, these visions might help you stretch your understanding of the supernatural. God can do anything, but our knowledge and imaginations are so limited that I think it is very difficult for most of us to even come close to understanding what God can do.

I agree with the above poster that maybe you should put aside St. Louis de Montfort’s writings for now. I have found that sometimes I am not ready for a spiritual work even though I feel drawn to it. At a later time, it will have an impact but not at that time.

I have heard that some converts pray the rosary long before they understand the Blessed Mother and that that has brought them many graces. How good God is that He will give us gifts even when we don’t believe as we should.

Don’t give up on building a relationship with the Blessed Mother. She will guide you and take care of you if you just give her a little bit of a chance to do so.

God bless

Posted by Jason on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 9:03 AM (EST):

” But I was never taught that a devotion to the Blessed Virgin or any saint was necessary for my salvation.” It’s not.
” Is this really what is formally taught by the Church?” No.

Posted by Anna B on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 7:48 AM (EST):

I think it should be added that, while dogma is the same for everyone, there are different styles of devotion. Not everything that is approved by the Church, no matter how valuable in itself, will appeal to or be helpful to everyone at all times (Cardinal Newman, for example, admitted despite his great love for Mary that some of the Italianate devotions to her, appropriate for another culture, made him uncomfortable). So you are free either to struggle through your difficulties with the “True Devotion” or to lay it aside without worrying if it is a stumbling-block for you at this point.

Posted by trespinos on Friday, Mar, 9, 2012 4:40 AM (EST):

Good job, Mark, of putting this saint’s ideas in a perspective that makes them accessible to us. I sympathize with your reader. I once went on record saying that St. Louis de Montfort was my least favorite saint, primarily for his inveterate tendency to lay guilt trips on those who don’t share his ideas of how the rosary devotion must be followed. Later, after learning more about the truly heroic efforts he expended to serve Christ, I modified my opinion of him. Of him, but not his writings. When we Catholics today have the pellucid and profound writings of Benedict XVI to study, it doesn’t make sense to me that we should spend a lot of effort on the 17th Century ferverino excesses of St. Louis.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

The time period for commenting on this article has expired.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

Mark Shea

Mark P. Shea is a popular Catholic writer and speaker. The author of numerous books, his most recent work is The Work of Mercy (Servant) and The Heart of Catholic Prayer (Our Sunday Visitor). Mark contributes numerous articles to many magazines, including his popular column “Connecting the Dots” for the National Catholic Register. Mark is known nationally for his one minute “Words of Encouragement” on Catholic radio. He also maintains the Catholic and Enjoying It blog. He lives in Washington state with his wife, Janet, and their four sons.